By Cliff White
Staff Writer
And the debate continues.
It will take more than one meeting for the Standish Planning Board to evaluate the four peer reviews they ordered at an Aug. 13 meeting to evaluate the site plan of a $29 million Saint Joseph’s College project.
During its Monday night meeting, the board considered public comment, responses from representatives of the college and peer reviewers before deciding whether individual parts of the plan to construct five dormitories and three parking lots met with town building standards. The board had the intention of voting to grant preliminary approval to the college by meeting’s end. However, after three and a half hours, several issues remained and the board voted to conclude discussions at its Nov. 5 meeting.
“Unfortunately, we haven’t gotten through everything,” Planning Board Chairman Carol Billington said at the end of the meeting. “We really only have two standards left to discuss. One of them, however, is going to bring a discussion, and just we’re not going to get there tonight.”
Parts of the plan discussed at Monday’s meeting caused lively debate, particularly a cul-de-sac that would access the dorms from Westerlea Way. The college had addressed earlier complaints about the cul-de-sac by adding a turning lane, widening it to better accommodate emergency vehicles and by adding three short-term parking spaces close to the dorms. However, the planning board expressed its uneasiness with the new plan.
“Is that cul-de-sac the best that it can be? That’s been my hang-up,” Billington said. “I’m not sure. I think it might have been a hasty agreement with the board of appeals and everyone decided to see if they could live with it, and I can see why some would think it could be improved.”
Lou Wood Jr., a Westerlea Way resident, expressed his displeasure regarding the cul-de-sac.
    “I know everybody wants this thing to go into the college, I’d like to see them get some new dorms, but it’s going to be disruptive for us, and it’s really not well thought out,” Wood said. “As the [peer reviewer] said, it’s potentially a problem but there’s so few cars going through there. Since when do we look at somebody and say, ‘Oh, it’s OK, we can do that wrong because there’s only six cars using that road’? There’s a lot of things we can do to change this to make it better.”
    The board decided to set four conditions to which the college must comply in order to gain approval: the change of the cul-de-sac into a D-type configuration (subject to fire department review and an engineer’s approval); the new cul-de-sac must be approved before occupancy permits could be granted to residence halls; a street-lamp must be placed on the corner of Westerlea Way and White’s Bridge Road; the sight distance on Westerlea Way must be improved by removing vegetation; no parking allowed on Westerlea Way or any other road close to the college.
    “I’m very pleased with the D solution,” Billington said. “It makes a lot of sense to me.”
    The only standard which did not receive unanimous approval from the board related to the college’s plan for drainage water; it passed, 4-1, with the condition that the college’s system be subject to Department of Environmental Protection monitoring. Planning Board member Bill Foster was the lone dissenter in that vote.
    “I’m not confident with the parking lot set-up, the way water drains internally into the pavement,” Foster said, referring to the college’s plan to use a newly designed, permeable pavement. “I’m just one person on the board, but I don’t think it meets the standards.”
    In regard to landscaping, the board set the condition the area surrounding the development should consist of overlapping, low-branch evergreens to create a stronger buffer between the campus and the surrounding area.
    Concerning lighting, in past meetings residents had said the college had planned to install cutoff lighting instead of full-cutoff lighting, a difference which could cause more diffusion of light at night.
    “A lot of the lighting the college is putting in is not being installed the way they said they would,” resident Joe Sampson said.
    The planning board accepted the college’s lighting plan on a 5-0 vote, with the provision that Bennett Engineering inspected the lights during and after installation to ensure they are installed correctly. Will Bennett of Bennett Engineering volunteered to conduct the inspections  free of charge.
    The college’s plan for sewage disposal also generated debate. Several residents said they were skeptical about how well the college’s system would handle future, increased usage as the college’s enrollment increased. Resident Janet Murphy said she believed the college’s insurance plan was insufficient to cover all liability in case of an accident. The sewage system was accepted by the planning board on the condition that an investigation be commenced into whether the college’s insurance policy is the right amount. If it is deemed more than sufficient, the college could lessen the total amount of insurance.
    At their 7 p.m. meeting on Nov. 5 at the Standish Municipal Building, the planning board will decide whether the college’s plan alters the nature of the surrounding neighborhood, whether the water supply in the plan is sufficient and whether the plan addresses issues regarding sound adequately.
    Saint Joseph’s College’s interim President Dr. Joseph Lee said while he was aware residents living close to the planned expansion were upset with certain aspects of the project, he hoped that could be overcome by dialogue and goodwill.
    “One good thing that has come out of this is that I’ve had the chance to meet a lot of the neighbors,” Lee said. “I want the neighbors to know that I enjoyed meeting them. At these meetings, the lawyers present on both sides hampers dialogue. I know the neighbors are skeptical of parts of the project, and I understand why. I want them to know that it’s our intention to do what’s right.”