November 14 2013

First meeting of the elected Board

Waban Area Council Members Elected on November 5, 2013: (Term January, 2014 – January, 2016)
 
Barbara Bower
Joseph Corkery
Andreae Downs
Matthew Gardella
Rena Getz
Sallee Lipshutz
Maureen Reilly-Meagher
Christopher Pitts
Kathryn Winters 
 
N. B.: WABAN AREA COUNCIL OFFICIAL SWEARING IN: JANUARY, 2014 
 
Notes from October 24, 2013 WAC meeting at Waban Library Center
 
(Candidates Night)
 
MESSAGES FROM ALDERMEN, WARD 5 SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBER & CITY NEIGHBORHOOD 
 
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
 
UPDATES ON WABAN ISSUES: (5 minutes/item)
1.) Add-A-Lane Project - Maureen on Meeting with Mayor, Bob Rooney and Bill Paille - no update on the traffic counts yet
2.) Riverside – Citizen lawsuit to overturn City’s Riverside Special Permit - project still on hold
3.) St. Philip Neri – No news is no news, will have to wait for contractor permits to be pulled before community can get involved
4.) Engine 6 – Citizen Letter of Complaint to HUD vs. City - KH reports supporters website to be updated
5.) Waban Improvement Society – December Programs - Sing-along & Tree Lighting 12/8 4pm Waban Square
6.) School Updates – Angier - Bill Paille to hold meetings quaterly with WAC and Contruction Events Board will be on Beacon, Zervas
7.) Financial Audit Advisory Committee Docket Item - A amendment has been proposed to the state to allow Area Councils top manage their own funds
 
COUNCIL ORGANIZATION:
1.) Mission Statement
2.) By-Laws (review by Attorneys and WAC board memebers Kathy Winters and Matt Gardella)
3.) Swearing-In Statement January - potential event to be explored
4.) Committees Board members to explore topics including Friends of Quinobequin
 
NEW BUSINESS - Web site content responsabilities and Communications, Change meetings from 4th Thursday to 2nd Thursday, WLC needs 5K to put in metal ramp so voting can take place on site
 
Adjourn: Next Meeting: Thursday, December 12, 2013, 7:30pm, Waban Library Center. 
Meeting Date: 
Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 7:30pm

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.