October 6, 2016 special mtg

Meeting Date: 
Thursday, October 6, 2016 - 7:30pm

Waban Area Council

Special Meeting Minutes

October 6, 2016, 8:00pm

 

Members in Attendance: Joe Corkery, Sallee Lipshutz, Maureen Reilly Meagher, Isabelle Albeck, Chris Pitts, Rena Getz

City Officials: John Rice (City Council), NHAC (Srdj, Groot, Nathaniel, ...), NVAC ()

Other attendees: ...

 

  1. JOINT MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 8:05 pm

 

  1. CITY CHARTER POSITION ON AREA COUNCILS

    On Sept 14th, multiple presidents of the area councils presented to the charter commission. On Sept 28th, the commission met internally to discuss options and came up with three options: eliminate area councils (delete article 9), modify article 9, or leave article 9 the same. Srdj’s opinion was that there was a strong feeling in the room that the commission felt that there were other means for community engagement within city government.  SL notes that this opinion seems to have been heavily influenced by a single individual within city government regarding how onerous this is on the city, in particular with regard to elections. There was significant discussion by the attendees around the comments made at the meeting and how best to respond.

    Proposed actions: everybody should write a letter on their own, encourage community to write letters via email blast to the community, each council should send their own letter, and a joint letter should be sent.

    NHAC called a straw vote to ask whether anybody in attendance at the joint meeting would vote for the charter if area councils were removed from city charter. Unanimously agreed that people would NOT vote for the charter with one abstention (Groot Gregory).

    NHAC voted to remove recommendation that the elections have to be held on election day. Unanimously approved.

    SL moved for WAC to take up the same vote as NHAC. CP seconded. Unanimously approved.

    SL moves that WAC approve sending the letter presented at the meeting subject to final minor edits. CP seconds. Unanimously approved.

 

  1. NEW BUSINESS: None.

 

  1. ADJOURN:

 

Next meeting will take place on October 13, 2016 at 7:30 PM.

 

Adjourn.  10:16 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.