SMOC appeared before the Planning Board on October 12 for continued site plan review hearings on their plans to move the Sage House to 517 Winter Street. In attendance were Jim Cuddy, executive director of SMOC, James Hanrahan, a member of their board of directors and their chief attorney from Bowditch & Dewey, Planning Board members Ann Welles (chair), Sue Bernstein, Carol Spack, and Andrea Carr-Evans, and members of the public including STEPPS members. Tom Mahoney was not present, having recused himself.
|
The meeting opened with some minor controversy over whether SMOC was late in submitting their plans. STEPPS was unable to obtain copies of their plans before the meeting, but Planning Board administrator Jay Grande explained that the plans were submitted on time, though there insufficient copies for Planning Board members and SMOC had to Fedex additional copies to Planning Board members. Most of them had only received their copies the day before the meeting. STEPPS had contacted the Board prior to the meeting regarding a continuance for this reason.
Mr. Hanrahan opened SMOC's presentation by saying they had addressed questions regarding use of the property and the Dover Amendment. He had submitted as evidence to the Board a thick document buttressing SMOC's claim that they were protected by the Dover Amendment. This turned out to be mainly copies of previously available documents, including a recent memo from Town Counsel Chris Petrini summarizing Dover related case law and delineating limits in the Board's purview in Dover cases. There was a noticeable change in the attitude of Planning Board chair Ann Welles regarding the range of questions allowed, probably as a result of these documents. The town is clearly concerned about taking on a third lawsuit.
Hanrahan then presented their revised plans. This consisted of "A" and "B" choices for parking, landscaping, etc. These consisted of mainly minor changes suggested at the previous meeting, such as the addition of lighting for the parking area. No option was presented for a Winter Street entrance to 517 Winter, which had been mentioned at both the previous meetings.
It is also unclear what will happen regarding dumpster location. As you recall, this became an issue at the last meeting, and after a neighbor took pictures of a SMOC truck illegally dumping in the 517 Winter dumpster after SMOC promised to take care of the problem, the dumpster was finally removed.
Carol Spack suggested extending the sidewalk that leads from the carport to Ardmore Road all the way to Winter Street for pedestrian access. Hanrahan said that adding 250' of sidewalk was not justified because too few employees would be taking public transportation. Spack said she was referring to residents' use, such as access to Tercentennial Park. Welles said that there were no sidewalks on Winter Street. (There is, in fact, a sidewalk along the entire length of Winter Street; we assume the chair meant no sidewalk on that side of Winter Street for a walkway on 517 Winter to join up with.)
Sue Bernstein reiterated her preference for having parking on the east (Winter Street) side of the property. She wants unused asphalt removed and planted instead. She liked the hydrangeas on the landscape plan but wondered if evergreens wouldn't be better for screening purposes.
Andrea Carr-Evans said she supported Spack's idea of extending the sidewalk. Hanrahan said that the Sage House program was highly structured and that residents would not be out walking and a SMOC van would transport to appointments, such as downtown for training. (He apparently gave no thought to the fact that neighbors on Ardmore Road could also make use of the sidewalk.) Ann Welles, supported by Carr-Evans, pointed out that the park was nearby and could be used by residents on weekends when there were no activities scheduled. (At a previous meeting, SMOC stated that as residents progressed through the program they were allowed greater freedom.) Carr-Evans also stated a preference for moving the bike rack under the existing carport.
Welles stated the need for stockade fencing and evergreens for screening (for the dumpster and the parking) and opened the meeting to the public.
Peter Adams opened by reminding the Board that neighbors had not had adequate time to review the plans and wanted time at the next meeting to address them. He then addressed chair Ann Welles, asking if the board had voted already to waive the requirements for Community Impact and Financial Impact Assessments, since the Board appeared reluctant to address these issues. He stated that while he had not reviewed the new SMOC legal document or the new Petrini memo, he believed that everyone appeared to operating under the false assumption that a Dover determination had been made.
Welles asked Hanrahan for a response, and he summarized the Dover Amendment, the new Town bylaw, the Petrini memo, and the Attorney General's letter instructing the Planning Board to be deferential to Dover applicants. He said that SMOC believed they had provided all necessary documentation and were Dover protected. Adams finished by stating that he was aware that the applicant believed their application was protected, but that they were arguing at cross purposes. Both the Petrini memo and the Attorney General's letter outlined procedures and limits when an official Dover determination had been made, and this was not the case with 517 Winter. He read into the record excerpts from two letters from the Building Commissioner and reminded the Board that due diligence would require them to examine all areas including Community and Financial Impact, and that their votes for waivers on these items would, in fact, determine whether this was a Dover case.
Cynthia Laurora spoke next, reminding the Board of the interest in a Winter Street entrance and expressing her support for an extended sidewalk and more evergreen screening. She reminded the Board of how shallow the rear yard is at 517 Winter, practically in neighbors' living rooms. Going to the board Hanrahan used to display the company's plans, she pointed out the lack of screening, saying SMOC had "ignored" the Board's request from previous meetings. She then pointed out her proposed location for the playground, moving it away from the west (rear) to reduce neighborhood noise, and asked how any handicapped persons would access the playground, since it is not adjacent to any handicap ramp.
Chair Ann Welles reminded Laurora that the playground needs to stay where it is because of access to a side door, but Laurora pointed out other entrances that could be used for access in her proposed location. She also suggested separate play areas for different age groups, pointing out that children play very differently at different ages. Hanrahan commented that the playground is in the ideal location "programmatically," and that they will not move it. He said that older children playing is "not typical" in the program. He also unequivocally refused to add a "green screen" to the rear of the facility, saying that it would "exclude" the residents from the neighborhood. He said that SMOC was "not amenable" to further landscaping.
Laurora reminded the Board and SMOC that the proposed Sage House was double the size of the current one and that playgrounds are noisy seven days a week. Spack agreed, noting that there is a playground near her art studio and the noise carries a long way.
Precinct 11 Town Meeting member Peter Pleshaw questioned SMOC on parking, asking, in particular, how many current Sage House residents have cars. Hanrahan responded that while he didn't have figures available, typically residents would not have cars, since this was not long term housing. Welles asked Hanrahan to have exact figures for the next meeting.
Precinct 11 Town Meeting member Ted Cosgrove asked the Board how it was determined that "Residential Care Facility" would be the basis for parking and other requirements. (This ties in with Carol Spack's mention at the last meeting that the Board should consider applying ten points from town bylaws covering "Assisted Living Facilities." This point appears to have been ignored.) Cosgrove also cited the confusion of the Board regarding the Dover Amendment, saying this issue should be decided before anything else, since it affects all other decisions the board will make.
Welles asked who decides if a project is Dover protected or not. She said that the applicant and Town Counsel say the Building Commissioner (acting as the Town's Zoning Enforcement Officer) makes this determination, disagreeing with Adams' earlier statement. Cosgrove said that Framingham faces Dover cases more than other towns and carries a disproportionate share of the burden of these facilities, adding, "we need to address this, whether it's here or in court." Sue Bernstein reminded the audience that they should contact the Planning board with any information relevant to this topic.
Welles began to conclude the meeting with a checklist of action items for SMOC for the next meeting:
Spack mentioned that she has been denied access to the basement of 517 Winter and asked SMOC what programmatic use they will make of it. She brought to the Board's attention section IV.B.1 of the Town's zoning bylaws, which defines Residential Care Facilities, suggesting that "Other Business of Institution Uses Not Specified" would be a better codification of the proposed facility. This would mean one parking place per 200 square feet of gross floor area, which would change the parking plan and make it necessary to know exactly how much of the basement would be used so that area could be included in the calculation. Hanrahan agreed that this would be allowed under the Dover Amendment, since parking is an allowed topic and gross floor area affects parking under Framingham law.
Hanrahan told the Board that he "believed" the basement would be unused or used for storage, but that he had not been asked by the Building Commissioner to make that calculation. Bernstein pressed him, asking if he would guarantee that the basement would not be used for bedroom area. Hanrahan refused to make any guarantees, stating that it would be inappropriate for the Board to inspect it. Welles asked if SMOC would specify the maximum number of residents for the facility, and Hanrahan repeated his earlier number of 40, which contradicts earlier statements by SMOC, such as at their neighborhood meeting. There is no such maximum number in SMOC's state contract, which states that SMOC has no control over who lives there, such decisions being made by the state's Central Intake Coordinator.
Spack asked if the SMOC van would park at 517 Winter Street overnight and Hanrahan said no. Cuddy, speaking for the first time all evening, said that a Sage House staff member would drive the van.
Bernstein said she would like to hear from the traffic consultant regarding a Winter Street entrance to 517 Winter. Bob Michaud, principle from MDM Transportation Consultants, said that "Jim" (referring to Mr. Hanrahan) had asked him to look at the advantages and disadvantages of "an additional entrance on Winter Street" and gave the Board his findings. He said that Winter Street was classified by the state as an "urban arterial roadway" and that the logical place for the driveway, opposite Winter Park, would impact traffic on Winter Street and was not necessary. Such a driveway, he concluded, would add 4000 square feet of impervious surface and that having the entrance on Ardmore was not causing accidents.
This is not surprising, since the consultant was (a) hired by "Jim" and would likely come to the conclusion Jim wanted, and (b) operating under the false assumption that an entrance on Winter Street would be an "additional" entrance, when in fact it would be the main (or only) one. His estimate of the impact of traffic on Ardmore Road was obviously not obtained through interviews with residents, who all seem to want the entrance to 517 Winter to be on Winter Street. The argument that such an entrance would have an "impact" on Winter Street traffic appears to be specious, since all the traffic would be there anywhere, and the placement of the entrance mirrors many other similar arrangements, including some on the 1000' locus plan, such as Bexley being near Louis and a driveway directly opposite the end of Harvey Cushing. Keep in mind we're talking about a driveway, not a road!
Bernstein said she liked limiting parking and paving, and preferred having no parking on the north side of the property due to the proximity to an abutter. Welles asked the public to vote on one of three plans: parking on the north, parking on the easy, or split between the two. The majority voted for the east, and Welles instructed SMOC to proceed with that as the assumption.
Carr-Evans asked if residential units at 517 Winter would count towards the Town's affordable housing inventory. Hanrahan said no, since it was not long term housing. Carr-Evans said it was not long term, but also not transitory. Hanrahan said there were distinctions in the law, and he would ask the DHCD (Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development) if the units would count as affordable housing.
Welles stated that she was against a Winter Street entrance. Bernstein agreed. Both prefer to minimize the amount of pavement on a site. Spack and Carr-Evans preferred parking on the east (Winter Street) side, but Spack wants to wait on a parking plan until a determination has been made on the use classification, since this will affect the number of places required. Welles agreed that this was a question that needed answering. Carr-Evans reminded the applicant that there needed to be a "No Right Turn" sign on the exit on Ardmore to direct all traffic to Winter Street.
Chair Ann Welles adjourned the meeting and announced that the next meeting would be held on November 9 at 7:35 p.m.
Thanks to all who attended or sent comments. Please stay involved by attending the next meeting or by writing to the town to register your concerns. And if you know of another neglected SMOC property the Board should be aware of, write to them or let me know and I'll publish it.
Have a comment, correction, or suggestion? Write to the webmaster!
SMOC "ignored" the
Board's request from previous meetings... refused
to make any guarantees... was "not amenable" to
further landscaping... 