WESTFIELD—The city’s Planning Board once again continued the hearing for a proposed school on Root Road, determining that they want more information from a local commission before a decision was made.
The proposal, from Sage Engineering and Frank DiMarinis from Roots, is for a three-story school capable of housing just under 600 students. The plans underwent modifications from the last time the two groups met Dec. 5 including requesting that it be a site plan approval and not a special permit request, but more information was requested by the Planning Board, particularly information from the Traffic Commission about traffic studies expected to be discussed at their meeting later today.
Luke Showalter discusses the modified plans at Tuesday night’s Planning Board meeting.
Among the changes to the site plan presented by Luke Showalter of Sage Engineering and DiMarinis, was the grades that would be represented at the school.
Showalter said the school would house children from grades 6 to 12, which is different from the proposed grade 5 through high school previously said, as well as the potential of kindergarten through high school that was also mentioned previously.
The student population, DiMarinis said during the meeting, could potentially be 249 middle school students and 332 high school students, totaling 581 students.
According to DiMarinis, though there is still no tenant for the building, the potential tenants are not seeking those lower grades.
“The vast majority of potential tenants are looking for these grades,” DiMarinis said.
Other items revised included parking, student drop-off, waste management, including a handler for biological waste to be brought to a medical waste facility, and the submission of a traffic trip generation report.
Showalter said that the parking area was revised, with modified flow of cars and buses that would be picking up and dropping off students and one-way traffic inside the parking area. There was also going to be signage and pavement markings notifying drivers of the flow of traffic and drop-off areas, with a “new layout that allows for plenty of queueing” of vehicles that are dropping off or picking up children. Traffic cops are also expected to be on site, directing traffic and assisting with the flow.
Other changes proposed included designated student and parent parking areas, with parking passes to high school students limited to 35. Also, school start times would be staggered, with high school beginning at 7:15 a.m. and middle school starting at 8 a.m.
Regarding start times, Ward Two City Councilor and School Committee Liaison Ralph Figy said later in the meeting that this was under the purview of the School Committee and would need to be OKed.
“Start and end times are dictated by the School Department,” Figy said.
Showalter said that they believe they improved the flow of the parking area, and “we believe the safety of the parking area has been increased for students, as well.”
Planning Board member Jane Magarian said that she felt the plan was much improved and that she liked it, though she still had concerns.
Among the concerns were that there were three spots within the plan where she could see students exiting vehicles, causing potential safety hazards for them in the parking lot. Also, getting parents to follow how the lot is set up and not going through the bus stacking and parking area.
Showalter said that the parents would receive instruction on how to operate in the parking lot.
“Receiving instructions and following instructions are two different things,” Magarian said.
According to DiMarinis, it will be about establishing a culture with students and parents, which will help with the flow of the routine comings and goings expected. They may also have increased traffic officers and teachers out during the beginning of the school year to promote the culture and correct maneuvering.
“We will have parents that don’t do what they’re supposed to do,” DiMarinis said. “But it becomes a culture.”
Regarding the review of the plans as a special permit, the Planning Board Chairperson also read into the record a letter from Showalter requesting that the process now be for a site plan review due to the allowed use of a school in the zoning and that the overflow parking was not expected to be used.
“I’d like to clarify that this is a site plan approval and not for special permit,” he said. “We decided not to use the site for overflow parking at this time.”
Magarian asked how they would prevent overflow parking from occurring at the site.
“We are going to do our best to prevent that from happening,” DiMarinis said. “I don’t see the need for it at this point either.”
However, when some sort of blockade for the entrances was suggested, such as a chain, DiMarinis felt that would not be necessary.
Panning Board member Rob Carellas said that he would not object to the overflow parking and that it may be safer compared to alternative options.
“I’m just wondering if this is because of the law or to appease the board,” Carellas said.
DiMarinis said that he was not attempting to confuse matters and acknowledged the project as a “standalone project at this point.”
Carellas also voiced concern over the use of “at this time” in regards to the overflow parking, comparing that to the lighting issues Roots Athletic Complex faced.
“I just want to make sure we are not limiting ourselves here,” he said.
City Planner Jay Vinskey noted that the overflow parking can be part of the findings within the site plan approval, or can be a special permit, to alleviate the concerns.
Magarian also spoke of the possibility of the lot becoming parking if a building is never finished, which DiMarinis acknowledged would be a possibility. However, DiMarinis said that no tenant will sign up for the lot if there is no site plan approval.
However, Vinskey noted that they would have to come before the Planning Board again if this were the case. Also, it can be made a condition that all work must be done at the site.
Concerns from the public were also brought forth, including the septic system proposed and how it may affect the Barnes Aquifer. Kristen Mello asked about more specifications of the leaching field for the septic system, and whether household cleaners can be made to not go into the septic system.
DiMarinis noted that the septic system would be made in accordance to Massachusetts Title 5 regulations and would also be reviewed by the city’s Department of Health.
Concerns were also brought forth about a traffic study that should be done, though Vinskey said that the expectation is that it does not trigger state regulations for a review.
“We’re asking you to act on this,” DiMarinis said. “It’s been over six months since we filed and there is a chance that I could lose the momentum.”
McEwan responded, saying “It has been a project for six months, but not a school for six months.”
The board determined that more information would be needed from the city’s Traffic Commission, as well as more information related to the septic system. The hearing was continued until Jan. 16.
