Residents, Fire and Police Departments Raise Red Flags Over Parking, Emergency Access, and Zoning Implications of Primrose Schools Project
Listen to this articleReading, MA — The Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) held a public hearing on Monday to evaluate the proposal by Primrose Schools to demolish a single-family home located at 885 Main Street and construct a 14,058 square foot two-story daycare facility in its place. The site, which is just under two acres in size, has minimal frontage on Main Street, but opens up to a larger space as it continues east from Main Street.
Attorney Mark Bobronski, speaking on behalf of the proponent, reminded the commission and the assembled crowd that the proposal falls under the Dover Amendment state law, which allows for specific uses, including churches, schools, and childcare facilities, to be built in residential areas. The site at 885 Main Street is zoned as a residential S-15 zone. He also suggested that the proposed forty parking spaces for the site, lower than the required fifty-two spaces for a building of this capacity, also falls under the purview of this law.
Engineer Josh Kline continued, noting that a childcare facility spreads traffic out over the course of the day, with drop off and pick up occurring over two to three hours as opposed to set drop off and pickup times like at a K-5 school, which makes traffic at any given time less significant than in a school setting. He also suggested that the drop-off and pickup of children would only take about five minutes per vehicle.
Kline reported that Primrose will remove invasive plants from adjacent wetlands and add over 300 native plantings to the area. The proposed building meets all setback and height restrictions and utilizes lighting that is compliant with “dark skies” regulations. Also included in the site plan are two fenced-in playground areas, a flagpole, and a small seating area for parents to enjoy the wetlands.
The facility is expected to have a licensed capacity of 177 students, with a need for 26 employees when fully enrolled. Kline suggested that facilities such as this one typically operate at 80% enrollment capacity, and that about 10% of those will not show up on any given day. Because of this, the actual use of the facility will be smaller than the licensed capacity, easing the stress on the parking. He also noted that staff are only brought in as needed and that several might utilize other methods of transportation rather than driving to and parking at the site.
“We feel that forty spaces are enough,” Kline added.
Concern about the project was raised by several residents, especially considering a letter from the fire department outlining issues with the proposal. These include the lack of a fire lane, inadequate access around the building, difficulty in using a ladder for second-floor rescues, and the absence of a turnaround, which would necessitate a fire truck to back up, potentially onto Main Street, in order to leave the site.
The letter states, “Backing of large vehicles, especially in a tightly packed parking lot, is inherently dangerous. Many incidents have occurred during the backing of fire department vehicles across the US. [The fire department] discourages backing and has policies that require spotters when no other option is available.” The letter goes on to state that even if making a three-point turn were conceivable, at least one piece of fire equipment would be in the driveway during an incident, which would require it to back up onto Main Street in order to depart the property. To do this, one firefighter would need to be positioned on the street to direct traffic flow, which is inherently dangerous.
The fire department letter to CPDC included pictures of the four closest Primrose facilities, all of which do not have these issues.
The fire department letter also expressed concern over the parking issue during drop-off and pick-up periods. “There could be a queue of vehicles that then back up onto Route 28,” the letter argued. “This causes safety concerns within the roadway and could have an impact on response to this facility and other areas of the community. Secondly, parents needing to drop off children will park vehicles in non-designated spaces, further impeding access for our vehicles.”
The police department also submitted a letter, citing parking, congestion, and issues unique to the facility being on Main Street, near the intersection of Birch Meadow Drive. “Given the potential traffic and safety concerns, the Police Department requests this project does not move forward as presented. The Police Department requests all parking conform to the required number of spaces in accordance with the town zoning bylaws, and does not endorse any waiver being given for less than required parking,” the letter concluded.
Abutters and other residents cited these letters, as well as personal experiences, to amplify their concerns, with abutter Greg Moreira referring to the proposal as “a deadly, dangerous idea.” Many also criticized the notion that five minutes is enough time for drop-off and pick-up times in the parking lot. “Using five minutes is using the best situations for your calculations,” resident Sunanden Suha exclaimed. CPDC member Gaetano Manganiello suggested that parking and traffic calculations for the facility should be planned for the “worst-case scenario.”
Kline confirmed that the development team will meet with both the fire and police departments in the coming weeks to assess their concerns and that Primrose will develop revised plans based on the outcome of those meetings.
Residents also questioned Kline’s enrollment suggestions, stating that as a business, Primrose has a vested interest in trying to maximize enrollment at the location. One resident also questioned whether the Dover Amendment, which was created for churches, parochial schools, and public schools, applied to a for-profit business, even if it is a daycare.
Several residents requested that the CPDC require a third-party traffic study of the area to be completed, rather than a simple peer review. CPDC Chair Heather Clish expressed reluctance to comment on too many issues until speaking with Town Counsel, as the Dover Amendment had certain restrictions, even on the questions that CPDC members could ask.
CPDC continued the public hearing to May 12.
