Traffic & Transportation Committee

RECEIVED By Amanda at 12:50 pm, 11/17/20 Amesbury Traffic and Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes Date: September 28, 2020 Start: 7:11 PM Virtual Meeting Attendees: Matt Einson, Robert Desmarais, Jim Nolan, Christopher Falcos, Lauren Tirone  Minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously (Jim motion to approve, Rob 2nd, unanimously approved. Old Business  Request for speed bumps on Rocky Hill Road and to make Rocky Hill Road “one way” from Main Street to Macy Street, along with “Left Hand Turn Only” signs for traffic exiting the Irving Station (and other businesses) onto Rocky Hill Road by John and Lynne Curtin.  Rob stated that they have not engaged the engineer yet, and expected that to happen this week. The item was continued until the October meeting.  Changes to Downtown Parking and Outdoor Seating by Mayor Gove.  Lauren stated Angela Cleveland could not be at the meeting however stated in an email to Lauren that they wanted to remove all the 15-minute spots along Main Street with the exception of those in front of Board and Brush. In addition the parklet in front of China Star is to be removed. Angela was in full agreement and these requests were actually from all the businesses themselves.  A motion to approve by Chris and 2nd by Jim. The motion was approved.  Request for a 4-Way Stop at the intersection of Pond Street and High Street by Gage Foley.  Rob reiterated that we would have to do a traffic study and we we do not currently have the funding and at the moment no funding has been requested.  Lauren stated she attempted to contact Mr. Foley to see if he wanted the item continued but did not get a reply.  Motion to continue the item until next meeting by Rob, 2nd by Jim. Motion was approved.  Speeding concerns and poor visibility at the intersection of Whitehall Road and High Street. Request a permanent Your Speed sign installed on Whitehall Road and possibly a mirror to help with visibility at the intersection by Crystal Rimoczy.  Lauren stated that Crystal could not be in attendance.   Matt stated we did go and do a sight visit and spoke about no parking signs.  Rob stated that we did take some measurements and talked about where the signs would go. Rob also wanted to continue the item to the October meeting since Crystal could not be there and the Committee’s discussion on abutter notices.  Rob made a motion to continue to the October meeting, Lauren 2nd. Motion approved.  Request for No Parking signage on Woodwell Circle at the boat launch access to Lake Gardner by Chester Cheng.  Rob stated that the boat access area is not owned publically and is owned by the developer. Rob also spoke to the Con Com and have not come to the conclusion that they were currently in violation; however there is no permitted boat access there. Rob does not know what that means for the no parking issue and would assume it is irrelevant.  Matt asked if Chester was going to follow up with the neighbors. Matt asked if Chester was present, however it did not appear that he was online.  Lauren stated that she send Chester an email that the item would be on the agenda for the meeting. Lauren also stated that she thought Chester was not sure what he was going to do until he found out the answer whether or not boat access was allowed at all.  Rob recalled that he was going to talk to the neighbors and maybe get signatures or something. Rob reiterated that there was no permitted access there.  Rob moved that is be continued until the October meeting, Jim 2nd. Motion approved.  Request to have 3-4 parking spaces removed from Main Street at Mechanic’s Row by Greg Caplan.  Greg Caplan was in attendance.  Matt stated that we did conduct a sight visit and decided that we could remove 1 or 2 spaces, Rob agreed.  Greg wanted to know if it was 1 or 2 spaces and where did that number come from. Greg stated that 1 or 2 spots is not going to make a difference. If you are up from Mechanics Row and making a left onto Main Street if there is a car in the 3rd or 4th space your visibility is really poor and it’s a major concern. Greg advised that he feels it should be 3 or really 4 spots that are removed. Greg reiterated that there are an abundance of spots available on Main Street so it’s not for lack of spots available for residents or employees of Heritage Towers. Greg said there is going to be a serious accident and there has already been one involving his neighbor in the past, and would like to know more about why you chose one or two spots.  Matt stated as he recalled when we went out to look at it taking away 1-2 spots improved the visibility of vehicles coming out of that street.  Lauren stated according to her notes we discussed one spot and trim the shrubs in the area.  Another resident of Mechanic’s Row, Dennis asked what shrubs we were talking about and that the intersection is really bad. Dennis stated that he has a van that sits high and he can see alright when he is pulling out, but cars come flying down the street from the light and you can’t see them when you are pulling out to take a left. Dennis also agrees that 4 spaces should be removed.  Greg said that if there are large vehicles parked in those spaces that you cannot see oncoming traffic  Another neighbor, Sarah Chapman spoke up regarding the issue. When she is pulling out and has to take a left, she has to look at a gap about 3 properties up from Heritage Towers and count cars when she is pulling out because she cannot see.  Matt asked if there were any comments from the Committee. Lauren asked if any of the residents along Main Street had been notified of this agenda item as far as abutters and asked Rob if that is something that would have to be done. Rob agreed. Rob asked Lauren if I had any accident data for this intersection. Lauren stated that aside from the accident that Greg was speaking of she did not know of any, and she would have to do some research.  Greg asked if the 1-2 spaces that were going to be removed were closer or father away from Mechanics Row, and regarding the accident data, no matter how many accidents there have been in the past, it does not reflect on what is going to happen tomorrow. So if I make a left-hand turn and am T-boned with my daughter in the back seat that is going to be an issue and is a public health concern.  Matt asked again if any abutters along Main Street were notified. Greg was told to get signatures of those from Mechanics Row, but was not told about Main Street. Greg stated he was willing to canvas Main Street if that is something the Committee wanted him to do and wanted to know who he needed to notify and wanted clarification. Matt did inform Greg that the spots we were talking about removing were the ones closest to Mechanics Row, and the hedges were the high hedges at the top of Mechanics Row for visibility. When we did the visit there were cars parked in those spaces. Greg wanted to know how sight visits work. Matt explained the procedure and that it is not an all-day procedure. Greg insisted on a resolution. Matt stated he would be open to whatever the Committee would want if we wanted to change it, however he would like to do that pending the notification of the residents on Main Street, and continue it to the next meeting. Rob stated the would like that and given that this is one of the few engineered roads in the City, and would like to hear from everybody on all points before he votes. Rob does not know if it needs a study on this or what but this was done 20 years ago and that is all formal parking. There are no a lot of sections of town like this. Rob also stated that he has been here 25 years and he has not heard this complaint yet regarding the area and would like to have someone look at the accident data. Rob said that he understood the residents concern however this area was looked at by an engineer and maybe there was an error made, however he would like a deeper look into this before we eliminate a 3rd of the parking on Main Street.  Greg reiterated that there are plenty of other parking spaces down the street an up the street on the opposite side of the road and it’s a short walk for any resident or employee. Dennis again asked if the sight visit was on Saturday and wanted to push for a safety study to be done because 20 years is a long time.  Rob made a motion to continue this pending a traffic study and make a request to the City Administration that they fund a traffic study. Jim 2nd.  Matt suggested we eliminate the 2 spots for now and either expand that or contract that depending on the results of the study. Lauren stated that the problem is that no one contacted the residents on Main Street regarding taking any spots  away. Matt stated that he understood, but we can either go with Rob’s motion, which was seconded, or withdraw Rob’s motion and go with his if the Committee wishes. Rob did not wish to withdraw his motion. Motion unanimous and approved.  Chris said that one thing that we should do is make sure that everyone one on Main Street in the immediate area be notified before we make a final decision. Matt asked Rob about the abutter notification and Rob reminded that we have that item on the agenda but it should be the applicant making the request and notifications and the process right now is not enforced it’s not very clear what they are supposed to do so my suggestion is to have the workshop and notify everyone what they have to do and have the petitioners come back with proper notification and let them do it in some more formal way.  Greg stated he was not clear what was agreed upon at the end and was more than happy to get signatures. Was not sure how long the traffic study was going to take and heard it could take 6 months. Greg also said it sounded like the taking away of the two spaces was ignored. He realizes there are many other items on the agenda and I appreciate everyone’s time, but he is afraid that this study is going to take us into next year.  Matt stated this item would be continued until next meeting and that we would notify the petitioners as to what the process is for notifying the abutters. Rob did state that his recommendation was to request funds from the administration to conduct a traffic study. Currently there are no funds for this so Greg was correct and this is going to take beyond the year to do so we can take it up again in October and see where we stand. We can make the request to the administration and hopefully we will have an answer as to when that might happen. Also hopefully we may have some guidance on how to proceed.  Bicyclist safety concerns and parking on Main Street and Clarks Road by Thomas and Linda Hall.  Thomas and Linda Hall were in attendance. Linda summarized their issue as was explained in the last meeting and how the landlord is not informing her tenants as to where they can park and how many parking spaces they are allowed to have. Linda wanted to know what the law was on how close these people can park to our property, our vehicles and how many spots they are entitled to.  Matt wanted to know if there was anything else to add to the issue since the last meeting. Lauren asked Rob if he had found out any information since the last meeting in reference to the property line. Mr. Hall as supposed to place a mark as to where it was. Rob stated that the right of way is pretty close to the buildings and half to ¾ of the truck that was parked in front of the garage was parked on the public right of way. There is no “No Parking” restriction there. As for the question regarding how close you can have a driveway next to another property it is 5 feet, however it’s a pre-existing, non-conforming lot so there is nothing that can be done about it. The zoning enforcement officer may however I do not know. As far as how many spaces they are allowed that is also a zoning issue not the traffic committee. One thing we can do is put No Parking signs there on the road.  Thomas Hall wanted to know if it is enforceable for the police to enforce the 5- foot setback into the driveway and on a private way. Lauren stated no, and parking enforcement is applicable to parking on the paved portion of the public  roadway. Rob stated this is a zoning issue and only the zoning enforcement officer can enforce it, and in his opinion, it is a non-conforming, pre-existing lot so their driveway is going to stand. And arguably, your driveway (Hall’s driveway, is technically within 5-feet of their property line, which would mean you’re non-conforming as well. So the only issue is the no parking issue which only applies to the paved portion.  Thomas stated that cars parking on the paved portion of the roadway is not the issue. But for clarification the 5 foot rule would not be enforceable because the driveways are so close together and the zoning officer would have to determine that and it’s not a matter of the police enforcing that 5-foot rule and issuing a ticket. Rob and Lauren agreed. The police are not going to enforce zoning regulations off the pavement with exception of parking on the sidewalk. Rob stated that this may be a trespassing issue or a civil issue when it comes to parking close to another person’s car.  Matt suggested that the Hall’s reach out to the Building Inspector/Zoning Compliance Officer which is Denis Nadeau.  Linda asked about the No Parking signs. Lauren asked Rob as to where he was thinking of putting them. Rob stated that if you did No Parking here to corner on Clark’s Road but it may exacerbate the problem. Rob made a motion to put the No Parking Here to Corner on either side at 1 Clarks Road. Lauren 2nd. Motion passed. New Business  Request for a handicapped parked space in front of 24 Spring Street by Robert Hughes.  Councilor Rinaldi was present on behalf of Mr. Hughes. Councilor Rinaldi stated that according to Robert, people park in front of the house and his wife cannot walk very well so it makes it difficult for her to walk to the car from the house and she gets tired. The house if right on the corner of Green and Spring Street. Councilor Rinaldi stated he did email Robert and ask that he call in to the meeting but he is not present.  Matt asked Councilor Rinaldi if Robert is looking for the handicapped space on Spring Street or on Green Street. Councilor Rinaldi stated Spring Street. Rob stated that they have a driveway and asked why they cannot use the driveway. Councilor Rinaldi said that he did not know and saw that as well and suggested that we should talk to him about that before we move forward. According to Councilor Rinaldi, he is using the driveway as a patio with tables. Rob stated he thought it was for No Parking and not handicapped, however this was a different item. Rob stated that he does not think you can fit any designated, legal parking space anywhere near his house. Lauren stated it was too close to the corner, which Rob agreed. The only other place would be directly in front of his driveway entrance. Councilor Rinaldi asked what the Committee recommended. Matt suggested that Robert attend the next meeting and that we don’t take any action at this time until we speak to him. Rob stated that we would essentially be designating a spot just for him, which is not a good precedent to set. Councilor Rinaldi agreed and stated he would try to meet with him before the next meeting.  Rob believes the TTC has the right to designate a handicapped space, but we will not reconstruct the sidewalk in that area.  Jim asked why he could not put a sign up on the gate in front of his driveway stating, “Do Not Block Driveway” so he can get out. Councilor Rinaldi said that  is a good question and he would ask him. Rob suggested putting “No Parking from Here to Corner” in front of his steps so no one could park there that might work in addition to him using his driveway. Jim also made a comment that there is also a driveway on the Green Street side that has flowers growing out of it so he is not sure why one of those driveways cannot be used. Councilor Rinaldi again stated that he would talk to him and see that he makes the next meeting.  Motion to continue until next meeting by Rob, 2nd by Jim. Motion approved.  Request for two additional stop signs to the intersection of Goss Ave, Goss Ave Ext. and Portsmouth Road as well as a street sign to Portsmouth Road by Kathleen Simms.  Kathleen and Matt Simms and Chuck Johnson are in attendance, they live at 6 Goss Ave Extension. Kathy states that Portsmouth Road is not marked and often people go straight down Goss Ave Extension to the cul-de-sac thinking it is Portsmouth Road. There is a stop sign at Goss Ave Extension as you exit the cul- de-sac and nothing on Portsmouth Ave. Kathy stated that her concerns were heightened this summer when a car was coming from Elm Street at a high rate of speed. She had put a dead end sign she make out of plastic in the road to help slow them down. The cars don’t slow down because they think Portsmouth Ave continues straight. Kathy feels that it should be a three-way stop at the intersection because people coming down Goss from Elm Street think they have the right of way (they have no stop sign) and so to the cars coming from Portsmouth Ave towards Elm Street around the corner (they also do not have a stop sign) and there is a chance you could have a T-bone accident there. It is very confusing to motorists. Kathy has lived on the street for 14 years and most all the neighbors are in favor of this as well. Kathy would like a Portsmouth Road street sign put up as well.  Chuck Johnson who lives at corner of Goss and Elm since 1986. Chuck described that when the sidewalk was put in at 3 Goss Ave in 1989 cuts onto their property. it is supposed to be a 90 degree turn, but it is not. He recommends a sight visit for the committee.  Matt asked Chris to explain the justification for the one stop sign that is there and maybe why the other two were not put up. Chris stated that it made sense to put the sign on Goss Ave Extension because most of the traffic that is turning from Elm Street onto Goss Ave continues onto Portsmouth Avenue. But it is a weird situation is not sure if the area would meet the requirements to put up the other two stops signs, however one of those curve warning signs would help a lot to let people know that the road continues to the right. This could be done very quickly as well as a dead-end sign. Kathy then asked about putting up a Portsmouth Ave sign. Rob stated that we could do that.  There was a concern about the traffic on each street thinking they have the right of way. Rob agreed. Rob stated that this should have been a T-intersection and that Goss Ave Extension should have been perpendicular to the curve on Portsmouth Road/Goss Ave so it is clear that vehicles are not to go straight. That would be the preferred solution. It would make it clear that the path would be to the right and not straight. Unfortunately for the residents here that is a little bit of work for us, and it would not happen until next year at the earliest. In the interim Rob can put a street sign and a dead-end/no outlet sign on Goss Ave Extension. Matt wanted to know who had the right of way in this situation. Rob stated the drivers turning down Portsmouth Road but there is nothing to indicate for people  taking the left that you have to yield other than the yellow lines. The yellow line should probably extend around and should not break. Matt asked if there was a sign stating to yield to traffic entering from the right. Rob stated yes and we could look at something like that. Rob stated he could probably do that with paint to turn. Rob recommends a sight visit. Motion to continue this item to the October meeting and for a sight visit scheduled for October 8th at 6:00 pm by Rob, 2nd by Jim. Motion approved.  Parking issues and request to have utility pole moved from in front of 20 Collins Street by Joni Vetne.  Joni was present and said if cars are parked across the street or mounds of snow she has a hard time getting out of the driveway. She has spoken to the neighbors, and they have been good, but she would like it moved in front of her house. Rob asked if they moved it in front of her stairs would that solve the problem. Joni said if they just put it in front of the house, although it would be ugly, would solve her problem. Jim asked how simple that would be; Rob stated it is not simple at all. Rob asked if we were to do “No Parking” across the street would that solve the problem. Joni stated that if they don’t park there, they may park in front of my house and it may cause the same issue for the neighbors across the street. And even if you make it no parking and someone parks there, Joni stated she cannot leave her house. Joni stated she does not know why they put it there, and Rob stated they put it on the property line. Joni asked if they could move it. Rob said that the utility company has the right to maintain that pole there and if someone wants it moved, someone has to pay for it whether it be the City or you (Joni), but we cannot force the utility company to move it. Joni asked how much it would cost to move the pole. Rob stated between $6000-$10,000. Rob stated that he can ask if they had any plans to move it and that it is leaning, however if we force the issue regarding a leaning pole they will replace it but put it back exactly where it is now because they are not going to move the wires at their own expense. Joni stated she does not want to annoy her neighbors by putting up no parking in front of their house. Matt recommended that she talk to the neighbors and see what they say and we will continue the matter until next meeting. Joni asked if it would help if she contact the utility company. Rob stated that it would not hurt. Joni asked if it was National Grid. Rob stated it was and make sure you get the pole number when you speak to them, that way they can refer to it. Lauren stated she would email Joni when the next meeting is.  Motion by Jim to continue this until the next meeting, 2nd by Lauren. Motion approved.  Parking issues in front of The Pointe Condos, 1 Brown Ave by Doreen Vartanian.  Lauren stated Doreen could not attend and asked that it be continued until next meeting. Motion by Jim to continue, 2nd by Lauren. Motion approved.  Request to convert 2 parking spaces in front of Brewery Silvaticus to 15-minute spaces by Jay Bullen.  Request to convert 2 parking spaces in front of Brewery Silvaticus to 15-minute spaces by Jay Bullen. Lauren spoke to Jay and it was his understanding that the parklets would be gone as of November 1st and he wanted to convert the parklet to 2-15 minute spaces after November 1st. Rob asked why he wants 15 minute spaces there and would they be temporary. Lauren stated yes they would still be  temporary for grab and go. Motion to approve the conversion of the parklet to 2- 15 minute spaces after Nov 1st by Lauren, 2nd by Rob. Motion approved.  Workshop discussion on abutter notices by Rob Desmarais.  Rob stated that this has not worked as an informal process and believes it should work like the Planning Board or the Conservation Commission where someone has to put a notice in the paper or someone has to get an abutters list from the Assessor’s office, let them know what they are proposing there then notify the registered abutters and they show up to the meeting and we do this in a formal process. We have continued many items simply because the abutters were not notified. Just set all abutters within 300 feet and be done with it. Additionally people keep raising these safety concerns, sometimes it’s legit sometimes it’s isn’t. That is what the committee is here to adjudicate, like the issue on Mechanic’s Row. That road was engineered 20 years ago, but it is one of the more formal roads we have other than Rte 150 and what will be Elm Street when we are done and it’s a problem for me that everything is a crisis and someone is going to die and we are going to be held liable for it. Chris stated that he looked at Mass.gov website regarding that area and there has only been one crash from a car turning left in the last 15years. Rob agreed and stated that there is not a safety issue there. Rob stated that he is not saying not eliminate the parking, but there hasn’t been a crash there in the last 15 years, what is the risk, but the engineer in him says make it as safe as possible, but we keep putting signs up and them taking them back and it’s frustrating. Rob would like to come up with a formal policy saying 300 feet certified abutter’s list from the assessor’s office, whether they do a certified mailing or group mailing list just like the other boards and committees.  Matt said that the other boards and committees have a budget for that. Rob stated no they don’t, it is paid for by the applicant. Someone who petitions the committee has to get the abutter’s list, go to the newspaper, place the ad and pay for that stuff. It is a cost to the applicant/petitioner. Matt asked Rob how he would feel writing down a suggested process to include things as to the abutter notifications as well as the basis of how we will make decisions that if there is not a formal safety study we cannot make a decision on it or we will based on our best judgment that we can imply at the time. Rob stated that he can make some suggestions but he does not think the committee can make its own rules and it would have to go to the Council. Matt agreed and it would be something to present to the Council to formalize. Rob stated he would try to have it down by October but he has some other things on his plate. Jim asked if we could add in time limits or something to that effect. Matt was hesitant to do that because describing an issue is different than normal public comment, and they need to be given enough time to describe the item in detail. Chris stated that if what Rob has suggested is implemented it may weed out a lot of the petty squabble that may occur. Rob agreed. Newburyport stated that they have a committee like this with an engineering staff that can come up with submittals for solutions but they have more resources than we do. They have the Fire Chief, City Engineer, two City Councilors, Parking Clerk, etc. They have six engineers so they can do a lot more than I can. Matt suggested we only continue the items so many times before it is dropped from the agenda. Rob stated that he really does not like to force someone to put an ad in the paper, and Newburyport does not do that, and who he talked to was not clear what they do for abutter notifications, but they do not have a fee to  file. There is another way to do it where we charge a small fee for each applicant to have DPW post the ad before the meeting or whomever. The write the add and post it. So it could be $500.00 one time as opposed to everyone has to post an individual add which is how the Con Com and Planning Board do it. Rob find a legal add the least effective way to notify people of what is going on. Rob does not think it is necessary to put an ad in the paper and thinks abutter notifications would be more appropriate. Matt suggested a notice on the City website. Lauren suggested on City social media websites but not sure how far the Committee wanted to go with that. Motion by Rob to continue to the next meeting. Lauren 2nd. Motion passed. Removed from the agenda. Next virtual meeting scheduled for October 26, 2020 at 7:00 pm. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.