The public hearing follows months of debate among residents and town
officials and a lively Town Meeting discussion that resulted in the
passing over of an article that called for the lot to remain unpaved.
UNCLEAR
It was unclear to the town, up until recently, whether the grant
specifically required paving in order to be designated an official park
and ride. Select board chair Andy Cunningham told forum attendees that
the grant is "very flexible" in terms of permitted materials used to
repair the lot including staymat and gravel.
Residents questioned how the town first came to apply for the grant that
was approved in November. Warren Zoning Administrator Miron Malboeuf
said that the town had applied for the same grant in 2006 and 2009 to no
avail, but it was approved after he reapplied.
Malboeuf said that there is evidence that the lot is being used by
commuters and tourists and is the only town-owned parking lot that
qualified for the grant. The grant also requires that the park and ride
be on a commuter highway and along a public transit route. Warren
Conservation Commissioner Susan Hemmeter argued that the East Warren lot
is not along any public transit route because no public transit serves
that location.
"GREEN INITIATIVE"
Select board member Ken Frey called the park and ride a "green
initiative" that will help the town reduce its carbon footprint as well
as promote carpooling. Residents complained that the lot is rarely used
as a park and ride and that lighting the parking lot would invite
loitering and criminal activity.
Rootswork board member Wendy Cox said that Rootswork had formed a
committee in November, per the select board's request, to investigate
alternative materials to paving, including staymat and gravel. Cox said
that while it was her opinion that Rootswork had no official stance on
the issue, they would comply with whatever the town wanted-but there is a
division on the board.
Warren resident Tim Seniff called the project a "waste of resources" and
said, "We don't need it. Who is it benefiting? I don't see the point in
spending money when the parking lot isn't used."
Frey said the town will eventually have to repair the parking lot and
continue to maintain it; he suggested using the state grant money to
repair the lot without paving.
CURFEW
Abutting landowners questioned whether the building's 10 p.m. curfew
would remain intact within the building's current use. Hemmeter asked
why the project wasn't subject to review by the development review
board.
Cunningham said that the town is following procedure and that, among
other reasons, a DRB review would take too much time given that the
grant runs for one year.
"This is the process; you're watching it," he said.
Cunningham said that the lighting was off the table and that the hours
of the building are pre-determined by the conditional use.
Select board member Matt Groom said that he voted against the project in
November in part because "it doesn't keep with the character of the
site." In addition, he cited the increased cost of paving and the
likelihood that the project would cost well over the $21,700.
Select board member Kirsten Reilly said that she voted against the
project initially because the public wasn't involved and expressed
gratitude to residents for participating in the forum.
"In the future, I hope this can happen before the grant is applied for,"
she said.
Town officials voted to use the grant money to improve the parking lot
with staymat or gravel, not add lighting, and include minimal signage in
compliance with the current use. Select board members said the
specifics won't be decided until the road foreman is consulted.
{loadnavigation}
