Here is a copy of the letter from Brian Falvey that a few people have requested. To the Editor: I have been watching the garage debate play out for several weeks in social and print media. I have elected to respond by speaking with voters directly and referring them to the public forum on Monday to hear the truth about the project from town officials. My hope is that voters will take advantage of this opportunity to get clarification on issues and ultimately understand why both the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee unanimously support the proposed garage. Today, I am forced to alter my course. Patrick Bruno’s letter printed in the Daily Item on March 19, 2014, and his “absolute correct” parking plan are devoid of precisely the “truth and knowledge” he claims to revere. I otherwise would not have responded, as I have so many times in the past, but the imputed credibility that comes with his employment of an “independent engineer” necessitates a response. The implication in Mr. Bruno’s letter is that he has somehow proven that the facts and information offered by myself and other trusted officials at Town Meeting were deceptive. In a true twist of irony, the engineering plan he offers to discredit us actually reinforces the accuracy of what we presented. In short, Mr. Bruno’s plan conveniently ignores Wakefield’s Zoning Bylaws (the “Bylaw”) resulting in an artificially inflated parking space count, while highlighting the lack of access that is fatal to the land’s value. The significant deficiencies are highlighted below. 1. First, the validity of Mr. Bruno’s entire plan is premised upon one fatal flaw noted by his engineer in ALL CAPITAL letters on his own plan: “DRIVEWAY CROSSES LAND OF WAKEFIELD SAVINGS BANK.” This is an acknowledgement that in order for the town’s land to be legally accessed for parking or development, it must be combined with an adjacent, privately‐owned parcel. This crucial point bears repeating: the town’s land can only be legally utilized if combined with an adjacent parcel, presumably by eminent domain. Mr. Bruno’s plan proves this point; yet, his letter ignores it. 2. Parking lots with one entrance must have a 24‐foot wide driveway to accommodate two‐way traffic (Bylaw Section 190‐37.D). Without a 24‐foot wide driveway from Main Street, the town’s parcel will yield ZERO spaces. Yes, no parking spaces whatsoever. On its own, the town’s land is plainly illegal and impractical as a parking lot—or any other use, for that matter—because its driveway is only 13.51 feet wide (i.e., room for only one car). As is, the town’s land cannot be a legal parking lot. 3. Even if this fatal flaw did not exist, any parking lot in Wakefield that is adjacent to a residential lotrequires a 15 foot buffer strip (Bylaw Sections 190‐37.F & 190‐31.G). This means no parking spaces can be located within 15 feet of any such lot line (along the entire eastern boundary). By sidestepping this significant zoning requirement, Mr. Bruno’s plan shows far more spaces than legally allowed. 4. Again, assuming the fatal flaw did not exist and the town’s land could be developed as a parking lot, Mr. Bruno’s plan should have followed Bylaw Section 190‐37.D by including 24 foot wide drive aisles to accommodate two‐way traffic. His engineer elected to use 20’ wide drive aisles in order to squeeze in additional spaces. The drive aisles are illegal, and so are the resulting spaces. 5. Pursuant to Bylaw Section 190‐37.E(1), parking spaces must be set back at least 7.5 feet from all buildings. Mr. Bruno’s plan includes 16 parking spaces adjacent to an existing building in contravention of this requirement. Again, ignoring the Bylaw provision yields an artificially inflated number of parking spaces. 6. Pursuant to Bylaw Section 190‐37.E(2), five percent of the parking lot shown on Mr. Bruno’s plan must be landscaped, including no less than 9 shade trees. Further, those trees must be planted in a landscaped island bound by a 6” high curb. Mr. Bruno’s plan includes no landscaping whatsoever, let alone shade trees, again artificially inflating the parking space count. 7. Parking lots in the northeast require snow storage areas for proper operation. Mr. Bruno’s plan makes no accommodation for the storage of snow, the requirement of which is a near certainty in any development approval process in this region. 8. The lot is devoid of handicap spaces, as required by Bylaw Section 190‐37.G, the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. It is unconscionable in this day and age for an engineer to design a parking lot in good faith with no handicapped accessible parking spaces. By not including these spaces and the required access aisles that make them compliant, Mr. Bruno’s plan further artificially overstates the number of spaces. I will amend the number of legal spaces in my presentation given at town meeting. What I thought was 25, now turns out to be zero. Without a 24 foot wide driveway, the town has no legal right to develop its land for so much as a single public parking space. Regardless, I stand by my representation that should the access issue be overcome, the town land would yield approximately 25 spaces. I based this on my deep understanding of our zoning bylaws gained from spending 10 years enforcing them as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The foregoing analysis shows you the reality of the situation when we follow the law. I seek to provide “truth and knowledge.” To that end, I look forward to welcoming voters to our forum on Monday night at 7:00 at the High School. Very truly yours, Brian E. Falvey Vice Chairman Board of Selectmen
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 20:35:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015