June 22, 2006 was SMOC's first appearance before the Planning Board for site plan review of their proposed use of 517 Winter Street for a drug rehab shelter. This was a historic occasion, as nonprofit "educational" uses like SMOC's Sage House are normally allowed to bypass scrutiny. But thanks to a new bylaw passed last August, Dover Amendment cases are no longer exempted from site plan review, although the Board is only able to examine certain points not precluded by the Dover Amendment.
The meeting was pretty innocuous -- boring even -- as it started late, ran long, and consisted mostly of SMOC's "dog and pony show" (as chair Ann Welles described an applicant's opening presentation). The most exciting moment was probably when Precinct 11 Town Meeting member Enzo Rotatori addressed the Board and wanted to know SMOC's plans for the ANR lots at 517 Winter Street. He said he asked the question at the neighborhood meeting and didn't receive much of an answer, so he wanted to see if the Board could get an answer. "Good luck," he concluded.
SMOC executive director Jim Cuddy explained "where the confusion came from": the Purchase & Sale agreement contained a diagram showing multiple lots and he wanted to be able to take a similar plan to the bank to increase the property's mortgage value. He the company had no plans to develop the lots. But when Welles asked if he would be willing to waive his rights to the lots, he flatly said "no."
SMOC wanted to appear reasonable and congenial, repeated calling Board members by their first names and offering to go overboard with parking and do whatever the Board requested regarding "land banked" parking places and landscaping. But the congeniality ended when Board member Carol Spack, near the end of a lengthy list of "to do" items for future meetings, was told that courts had ruled that the Dover Amendment precluded the Board from requiring a Community Impact Assessment and a Fiscal Impact Assessment.
Spack asked SMOC if they would be willing to provide these anyway, in order to create a good working relationship with the neighbors and the Town. She said that SMOC has repeatedly stated that their facilities have no impact on neighborhoods or property values, and that this would be a good opportunity for the company to prove that these claims were based on fact and not just opinion. Again, Cuddy flatly refused, giving a lengthy and pretentious speech about how this was a precedent setting case and he had a responsibility to future applicants to preserve the integrity of the Dover exemption. "Based on the Building Commissioner's ruling that this is a Dover protected application," he said, financial and community impacts were "out of your purview. The Planning Board is not a forum on social services in town."
Another clash came when the Board stated its desire to see a properly drawn locus plan showing the area around the property "for a distance of 1000 feet from the project boundaries," as is normal for Planning Board applications. SMOC's plan only showed 300' and they objected, not seeing the need for the larger scale drawing. Spack said the plan would show the intensely residential nature of the neighborhood and the lack of any nearby facilities. SMOC cited the expense of preparing such a drawing, to which Welles said that expense to the applicant is "not a concern to us."
It appears that contrary to previous claims, SMOC is far from ready to move in to 517 Winter. In addition to increasing the parking spaces, there is concern about the condition of the driveways, and the town's Fire Safety Officer has ruled that the width of the driveways and turning radii are insufficient for fire trucks, as is the height of the porch under which the driveway runs. SMOC will have to expand the driveways and possibly resurface all of them. This led Spack to wonder if SMOC had considered moving the entrance of the facility to Winter Street. Hopefully, this will be followed up on, as it would greatly alleviate traffic concerns on Ardmore Road.
SMOC's traffic consultant gave a presentation showing they would have no impact on traffic in the area, since there would be a maximum of seven employees at the facility and residents were not allowed cars. A SMOC van would take them to all appointments.
In public participation, abutter Jacqueline Mennino disputed this. Her driveway on Bexley is a virtual continuation of Ardmore, she said, and she was concerned about headlights, trucks sliding into her house in the winter, and the safety of children and elderly walkers, who use the street since there are no sidewalks.
Dr. Silverman from Crest Road questioned the small number of bathrooms per family (nine bathrooms for up to 40 residents and 15 families) and insisted on regular Board of Health inspections since sharing of bathrooms could easily lead to disease outbreaks.
Peter Adams urged the Board to require Fiscal Impact and Community Impact Assessments, reading to the Board the purpose of site plan review from the Town bylaws:
To protect health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town by providing for a review of plans for uses and structures which may have significant impacts on traffic,municipal and public services and utilities, environmental quality, community economics, and community values in the Town.
He said that the state Attorney General's Office had approved a Town bylaw requiring all applicants, Dover protected or not, to undergo site plan review, and that site plan review included impacts to the Town and the neighborhood.
Welles reminded the audience that it was the section on "conditions, limitations, and safeguards" where their input would have the most impact. After a brief discussion of future dates, the Board voted to continue the hearing to July 13 at 7:45 in the Ablondi Room.
Perhaps at that meeting, STEPPS' concerns and requests will finally be addressed. I hope as many people as possible will attend. Your input will be listened to.
(But not by Planning Board member Tom Mahoney, who recused himself. His wife is a social worker, who, as an independent contractor, accepts clients from SMOC. We agree with Tom that this is not likely to be a conflict of interest, but kudos to him for placing such a high emphasis on ethics and not wanting even the appearance of conflict of a interest.)
Have a comment, correction, or suggestion? Write to the webmaster!