http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120109/NEWS02/701099995
Published January 9, 2012 in the Rutland Herald
School district receives approval after expansion project
By Christian Avard
Staff Writer
SPRINGFIELD — The Springfield School District has received approval for an expansion project that took place almost three years ago.
The Springfield Development Review Board determined the school district’s expansion plans met the zoning bylaws. The DRB issued the school district’s conditional use permits after the school district presented an adequate traffic study.
In March 2009, the school district sought permits to renovate Elm Hill and Union Street elementary schools. The DRB approved the permits and the expansions took place.
The DRB learned afterwards that the school district was in violation of their permits because they did not submit sufficient traffic studies. The school district presented the DRB with a revised traffic study in December that included a mitigation plan for the drop-off and pickup of students, improved student safety, and sign and sidewalk improvements.
The DRB also examined if the school district plans affected the character of the area and traffic on local roads and highways. According to their recent decision, the DRB concluded there were no “adverse impacts” in the school district’s traffic plan.
In the site studies, the DRB noted that Elm Hill and Union Street elementary schools improved pedestrian safety. It included traffic access, adequate parking, adequate loading facilities, bicycle and pedestrian access, adequate lighting and landscaping and screening.
Going forward, the Springfield School District must “manage all school-related traffic” on both school properties. They are responsible for mitigating “current and future adverse impacts” of school pickups and drop-offs, reported annually to the DRB. They must also implement safety and traffic control devices in school zones.
Concerns over the Springfield School District expansion plans first arose in September 2009.
In March 2009, voters approved the closure of Park Street School and the consolidation of Elm Hill and Union Street schools. Both schools taught K-5 but the school district wanted to restructure the schools so that Elm Hill taught K-2 and Union Street taught grades 3-5.
According to DRB Chair William Kearns, the school district “never notified the town office about the change in use of the two schools,” and he said by changing the schools’ grades traffic issues at both schools would also change.
However, the DRB and the school district ironed out their differences after Resource Systems Group of White River Junction completed a traffic study on the school district’s behalf, and the DRB ruled the two schools were finally in compliance.
Superintendent of Schools Frank Perotti could not be reached for comment.
Another prime example of how the school district does business. They seem to think they can do whatever they want and have no accounting to the public or to laws or regulations. If the residents were smart they would call the school board and demand that we look for another superintendant.
ReplyDeletePerotti NEEDS to be fired! He has failed our children and our town.
ReplyDeleteOh just wait until you get the new budget amount they are going to ask for. Don't let it pass your mind that they approved a salary increase fro ALL the administrators this year. They "lost" money with no accounting for where it went and they are trying to tell you that the increase was due to hiring alot more teachers. Well um common sense says the teachers they hired were replacing ones who had left or retired. That would be at the very least an even swap but should be a savings. Get RID of this guy. Several of us are planning on courting and explaining to the seniors at the highrises why they should vote no to the budget which has always been the school districts stronghold. Now we are going to explain WHAT is the truth and WHY these things are happening...
ReplyDelete