Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Daycare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise safety concerns as Planning Board holds over Lightbridge Academy enrollment increase
Summary
The Planning Board heard traffic and parking analyses for Lightbridge Academy’s request to raise full‑time‑equivalent enrollment; outside traffic review found existing parking and trip generation acceptable, but neighbors pressed safety concerns about a missing guardrail, retaining wall and a crosswalk. The board held the public hearing pending as‑built plans and building‑inspector review.
The Planning Board opened public comment July 1 on an amended site plan and special permit for Lightbridge Academy at 529 Central Avenue seeking to increase enrollment beyond a previously agreed cap of 105 full‑time‑equivalent (FTE) children.
Applicant counsel Matthew Dudley reviewed the project history and said the applicant submitted updated traffic and parking utilization studies. Outside traffic reviewer Andrea Connell (Kimley‑Horn) told the board that driveway counts for a recent day were lower than projections in 2020 and that peak parking demand in the submitted study would be about 37 spaces with full enrollment; she recommended lifting a prior restriction that had reserved three spaces for employees because video evidence showed parents using them for drop‑off.
Neighbors, including an engineer for the adjacent 531 property, urged the board to require safety fixes. Elliot Senor described a segmental retaining wall adjacent to parking where a guardrail was shortened in the field change during construction; he said the wall lacks structural rigidity and recommended guardrail or other protection to prevent vehicles from going over the wall into the lower parcel, particularly in winter. Another commenter, Murray Bowden, urged reworking the painted crosswalk to a more visible standard or installing an upgraded crossing control to slow vehicles and protect pedestrians.
The applicant said the building department and town engineer had reviewed aspects of the plan but the planning board declined to vote and instructed the applicant to provide as‑built survey plans, written confirmation from the building inspector/town engineer about the retaining‑wall/guardrail arrangement, and refined parking/employee‑space management details. The board held the public hearing open and set a follow‑up review date once the requested materials are submitted.
