Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews site options, wetlands buffer and parking for multigenerational center
Summary
Consultants presented site-plan options intended to minimize wetlands permitting and show alternates for building size, parking, recreation courts and community garden; committee members flagged proximity to parking, fire‑marshal egress and accessibility for seniors as key concerns.
Members of the Hallowell Multigenerational Building Committee reviewed site plans and permitting options intended to reduce wetland impacts while preserving recreation and parking.
A BBH/A consultant presented site diagrams and said the plans show options “that are relatively easily permittable with Rhode Island DEM because they’re either improving the wetland considerably or they’re not adding anything to the wetland.” The consultant said typical permitting timelines for the schemes would be “probably 90 to 120 days.”
The plans discussed keeping existing paved areas and scarifying and repaving the road and parking footprint to preserve parking and reduce new disturbance. The consultant said that by repaving the already-disturbed area the project could add three pickleball courts and one basketball court and retain about 50 parking spaces while keeping much of the build area “as of right” — i.e., outside the wetland that would trigger additional permitting.
Committee members raised accessibility concerns. The consultant noted that senior-focused programming benefits from parking located within 125 feet of the main entrance; in one proposed layout the nearest parking could be about 200–230 feet from the door, which committee members said might be too far for people with limited mobility.
Fire and egress questions came up. A committee member said if the fire marshal requires a second access road through wetlands, that could exceed the consultant’s 90–120 day permitting estimate. The consultant acknowledged a second access that crosses wetlands would be more complicated and said the town should revisit the fire marshal’s requirements to confirm whether two means of egress are needed for this intensity of use.
On amenities, the committee confirmed a backup generator was included in the original project estimate, which could make the building eligible for emergency‑management funding. Committee members discussed adding showers and kitchen facilities to support sheltering operations, and noted how that could open eligibility for emergency-management grants.
Next steps: the consultant will pursue preliminary readings from DEM about specific options, the civil engineer will continue site plan work, and the committee will consult again with the fire marshal about egress requirements and with the planning board on permitting and a required public hearing for the CDBG application.
No formal decisions on a final layout were taken at the meeting; the committee discussed alternates to include in bidding documents so the project can scale up or down depending on final funding and permitting.
