September 7, 2006
The Framingham Planning Board held its second in a series of Site Plan Review meetings for the proposed SMOC shelter for homeless drug addicts at 517 Winter Street on September 7, 2006. Though not as well attended as the first meeting, it was much livelier. It was highlighted by a series of objections to SMOC's parking and landscape plans, neighbor complaints about the use and conditions of SMOC properties, and a clash between SMOC's James Hanrahan and Planning Board member Sue Bernstein over whether 517 Winter would be protected by the Dover Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
SMOC’s plans seemed designed to maximize impact on the neighbors.
STEPPS analysis of SMOC plans (777 KB PDF) |
As at the first meeting, Planning Board member Tom Mahoney excused himself, reminding the Board that he had recused himself due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. Chair Anne Welles explained to the room that this was the proper action, even though everyone knew there was no actual conflict. She then opened the meeting by having SMOC present their revised plans, which were presented by SMOC attorney (and Board of Directors member) James Hanrahan.
The Board then began their comment period. I was worried that we had not had enough time to prepare a response (we didn't get their plans till Tuesday afternoon!) but was relieved to see that the Board seemed to share our concerns. In particular, Sue Bernstein opened the discussion by commenting on the impact the plans would have on the neighbors and saying that much of what SMOC proposed should be moved to the Winter Street side of the property, rather than all being crammed into the northwest corner. (SMOC's proposed location for the dumpster was about 35' from Lillian Carney's patio!) She also questioned SMOC closely on several aspects of the plan, including fencing, pointing out that she wanted their changes to be attractive and reflecting the beauty and historical importance of the property.
Carol Spack agreed, adding that she wanted to see SMOC move their dumpster and proposed snow storage away from the fence between SMOC and Carney. She said SMOC needed to add a maintenance plan for their landscaping, adding that she was "dismayed" by the condition of SMOC's existing Sage House on Clinton Street.
Chair Anne Welles proposed that the "land banked" parking be made permanent so the parking at the front of the building could be eliminated, pointing out that there was "more than one way to have a negative impact on the neighborhood" and that she didn't want any "sullying" of the Winter Street frontage. She and Andrea Carr-Evans were unsure about various aspects of the plan and wanted to reserve judgment until they heard from the neighbors.
They did.
Andrea Carr-Evans asked if there would be lighting or an irrigation system, and SMOC said no. Carr-Evans and Welles were both concerned about landscape maintenance at the property. Welles said there was a SMOC property near her house that wasn't maintained well. SMOC said they would look into this, and had no objection to a landscaping bond. Welles then opened the meeting to public comment.
Lillian Carney spoke first, saying that in many years of living next to the nursing home, she had never had a problem until now, and she was very upset with SMOC's plans to crowd so much into the corner abutting her property. She wanted the facilities moved to the east (Winter Street) side of the property. Her personal appeal seemed to affect everyone.
Peter Adams then said that SMOC's plans seemed "designed to maximize impact on the neighbors" and echoed others' requests to move more facilities to the east side of the property. He reminded the Board of Spack's comment at the first meeting that they might consider a curb cut on Winter Street, and said this should be investigated as a way of relieving traffic, noise, and public safety concerns on Ardmore, pointing out that the property does have a Winter Street address and that Ardmore and Bexley are both smaller than Winter and totally without markings such as lane dividers.
Betty Sullivan echoed Carney's complaints about the snow storage and dumpster location, and asked why the dumpster at 517 Winter was being used by other SMOC facilities. She said had seen many SMOC trucks dumping at 517 Winter and wanted to know if it would continue. SMOC said there was some construction going on and the refuse was probably from inside 517 Winter. This was roundly rejected by neighbors.
Ellen Casey said the lack of lighting was a security concern, especially for elderly residents, and asked if some could be added in the parking area. A Board member asked if motion activated lights would work, and Casey said yes. SMOC said they had no objection to this.
Kathy Vassar then echoed Anne Welles' earlier comment about SMOC not maintaining their properties by mentioning the former nursing home on Edgell Road that SMOC had turned into a shelter. She said there was little or no landscaping work, the house was in poor condition, and SMOC had shown no concern for appearance when adding things like a parking lot and wheelchair ramp. She said the property looked overcrowded and neglected. The Board agreed with her sentiment that SMOC should show more consideration to its neighbors and pay more attention to landscape maintenance, even noting that they would look into the charges. SMOC attempted to sidestep the issue by saying they weren't sure which property they were talking about, to which Welles curtly asked, "How many properties on Edgell Road do you have?" The address (248 Edgell Road) was provided by the audience, and the Board noted it for further investigation.
Anyone with other SMOC addresses that are neglected should write to the Planning Board to let them know your concerns.
Larry Hendry then spoke, bringing the dumping issue back up and assuring the Board that he had seen SMOC trucks bringing mattresses, carpets, etc., from off site to put into the 517 Winter dumpster, and that the noise when it was emptied was terrible and too early in the morning. SMOC said they had no knowledge of dumping at 517 Winter and would look into it.
Hendry also questioned the number of deliveries, in particular food for 15 addicts and their families -- 2-3 children and possibly spouses -- anywhere from 40-75 people. Would there be tractor trailers, etc.? Where would the deliveries be made? Hanrahan showed the location of the deliveries, and assured Hendry that there would only be vans and small trucks, showed the delivery point on the map, and showed the route where they would turn around and leave. Hendry maintained that it would be impossible to bring perishable goods (milk, e.g.) for 60-70 people without a refrigerated truck. Cuddy said the maximum number of occupants would be 40, but this number is different from the larger number stated at the neighborhood meeting by SMOC's Jerry Desilets, and in any case, SMOC does not control admissions and cannot make promises about the number of residents. That will be done by a state agency.
Cynthia Laurora noted that the Sage House will be a much more intensive use than the former nursing home and that there is no guarantee that the use will not be expanded further once 517 Winter opens. She pointed out that there are four ANR (Approval Not Required) lots at 517 Winter and reiterated Spack's suggestion of a "buffer zone" between the facility and the neighbors and supported the idea of moving the entrance and exit to Winter Street.
Finally, Dr. Harold Silverman pointed out -- "since no one else here is saying it" -- that "this is an inappropriate use in this location ... SMOC is just thumbing its nose at the town and the neighbors." He said he saw "no sign of the town protecting [SMOC's] neighbors."
Anne Welles then closed the public comment period and listed what she saw as the "action items" for SMOC for the next meeting:
Spack added to this list the idea of a "buffer zone" and moving the entrance and exit onto Winter Street. The only reason SMOC is not thinking of this, she said, was to preserve their four ANR lots on Winter.
Bernstein pointed out that this would not be an allowed use in this location if it were not for the Dover Amendment, and stated emphatically that SMOC bore the burden of proof that their education claims met the standard for Dover protection. She said the town should not have to take it on faith that this use was protected or that there would be a maximum number of people at the facility. She wanted guarantees, and floated the idea of yearly inspections to ensure that SMOC's claims continued to be met.
Hanrahan (SMOC's attorney) then changed from jovial presenter to stern lawyer, scolding Bernstein and the Board and lecturing them on the limits of their authority and stating that the Building Commissioner had determined that their use was Dover protected and that the Board was very limited in what they could examine or demand.
Welles then asked Hanrahan if he meant that authority for verification of use lay solely with the Building Department, and Hanrahan said yes. Bernstein said he was entitled to his opinion, but the town could "look into the circumstances surrounding the Building Commissioner's decision."
Hanrahan them pointed out that regardless, the residents of the Sage House were also "protected by federal laws as a result of their disability," referring to their drug addiction. Bernstein sharply disagreed, pointing out that the Americans with Disabilities Act bars discrimination against the disabled by stating that they be treated no less favorably than others. In this case, she said, the town was giving "more latitude, not less, to this applicant than to others." If the project is denied, she said, it wouldn't be due to discrimination. Spack agreed that the Board should ask for clarification from the Building Commissioner, and Dr. Silverman said that "nothing in the Dover Amendment prevents the Board from requiring validation of an educational use. SMOC is simply stonewalling."
Carr-Evans pointed out that the Sage House project at 517 Winter was a relocation, and some of the questions about use could be answered by examining the current location. She said the Board had heard enough from the neighbors to convince her that the parking had to be moved, but she was hesitant to move the entrance to the facility to Winter Street because of the potential loss of trees. She agreed that there should be more buffering.
Spack pointed out that the Board could take some guidance from a section in the town's zoning bylaws (Sec. III.A.3.b) covering assisted living facilities which lists ten points, including setbacks and year-round opaque screening, for such facilities. She said that was the section of the law closest to SMOC's proposed use, and the Board might consider applying those points as a reasonable standard.
Spack also pointed out that the proposed use appeared to be a rooming house and that the applicant might require additional permission from the Board of Selectmen.
Welles said these were all legitimate questions for the next meeting and that the majority of the Board spoke for the neighbors' wishes in seeing more facilities moved away from Ardmore to the Winter Street side of the property. She said there was still a question to be resolved regarding curb cuts and the Board and the applicant should look into this with the Fire Department.
Hanrahan said that they would present two parking plans at the next meeting so the Board could decide between them, and that the width of the driveway was up to the Fire Department. SMOC would set the width at whatever was needed, adding that a Public Way Access permit would be required to modify the curb cuts. Carr-Evans asked for a "No Right Turn" sign to direct traffic leaving the site onto Winter Street rather than Ardmore Road. Some discussion followed regarding traffic with and without a chain blocking the northern entrance on Ardmore, and SMOC agreed that the issue of the chain was totally up to the Board and the Fire Department.
Chair Anne Welles then concluded the meeting by continuing it to October 12 at 7:35 p.m. She reminded the audience that there was plenty of opportunity for questions and comments, and they should always feel free to write or call the Planning Board.
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!
