March 24th 2015 Special Meeting

Agenda: review and approve contents of WIS newsletter insert.

Meeting Date: 
Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 7:00am

MINUTES

Members in Attendance:Rena Getz, Chris Pitts, Sallee Lipshutz, Maureen Reilly-Meagher, Joe Corkery, Andreae Downs

City officials: Other attendees: Members Absent:Matthew Gardella, Barbara Bower, Kathryn Winters

1. Meeting called to order at 6:00 PM

2. RG moves to open discussion on content of letter. MRM seconds.

3. RG suggests reducing the number of times the word “developer” appears in the St. Philip Neri section as it is overused. SL updated text of paragraph to improve wording.

4. AD notes that Angier/Zervas paragraph should be updated to reflect the fact that slides are already online.

5. AD recommends moving “Stay Informed” section above list of councilors

6. AD recommends pulling out last paragraph about future planning meeting and bold it.

7. SL incorporates above edits into document. SL moves to adopt document as edited. AD seconds. Unanimously approved.

8. SL states the following are the prices for printing: ● $192.30 for b&w ● $230.76 for color

9. SL moves to vote on whether or not to print in color vs. b&w. AD seconds.

Unanimously approved to print in color.

10. SL states the cost of insertion in the newsletter is $96.15 for a total cost including print of $326.91.

11. AD moves to approve funding. CP seconds. Unanimously approved.

12. SL states that while this mailing will capture ~1900 or so residents in the Waban Area. There are still hundreds of residents we will need to reach by another means.

13. AD suggests that perhaps we should write a letter to the editor for the Tab as another way to raise visibility.

14. MRM states that she doesn’t want to rule out any mediums for awareness yet. Suggests looking into ways for all of us to learn how best to use media.

15. RG suggests that we get additional copies printed to hand out at Waban Village Day. AD moves that we authorize up to $100 for printing extra copies. JC seconds. Unanimously approved.

16. SL moves to adjourn at 6:23 pm. JC seconds. Unanimously approved.

Next meeting will take place on April 9, 2015. Adjourn. 6:23 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joe Corkery

Comments

48 rental units under 40B 105 parking spots with access onto Karen road

The Beacon and Chestnut St intersection. is already too congested. We would contribute to stop this development. Developers make promises, but the reality of the finished project is always worse than what was proposed

Oakvale Road, unfortunately, is a private road and therefore is not maintained by the city. It is the cut-through of choice for vehicles going to Karen Road. Residents of Oakvale have been suffering the destruction of Oakvale's pavement by hundreds of construction trucks since the McMansioning of Karen Road started 10 or 12 years ago. So far, none of the developers has taken responsibility for mitigating the damage. We anticipate that this will get even worse during the project at St. Philip Neri. We would like to propose an agreement with the developer of St. Philip Neri that they will either send their trucks down a public street such as Montclair or Moffat rather than Oakvale, or repave our street when they are done with their project.

Residents of Oakvale are also concerned about the amount of traffic that will pass daily over our deteriorating private road once the multi-housing project is completed. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss with the city and the developer ways to mitigate this problem, and would like to be included in “near neighbor” meetings. Possible solutions to the problem include: establishing Oakvale as a one-way street from west to east, on the model of nearby (private) Roslyn Road; putting the ingress to the new development on Short/Beacon Street rather than Karen Road; having the city make Oakvale a public road without charging the abutters for the improvement; or by some other means.

I asked several questions at the end of May 6th meeting at the WC which was attended by approximately 140 people to get a sense of where people stood after the presentation.

  1. How many were involved in the meetings the developer held prior to the May 6th meeting? Less than a dozen raised their hands
  2. How many were in favor of the current proposal? About a dozen raised their hands
  3. How many were opposed? 80-90% raised their hands
  4. How many would favor a design that had half as many units and preserved the Church structure? 50-60% raised their hands.