September 26 2013

Review notes from August 22, 2013 WAC meeting at Waban Library Center

Presentation by Alicia Bowman, Pedestrian Task Force Coordinator

Continued Discussion of Rt. 128 – Rt. 9 issue:

A. Presentation by William Paille, Director of Transportation: graphic depiction of traffic flows at proposed intersection of Rt9 and Rt128.

B. Mitigation process update

Remarks from our Ward 5 Aldermen

Remarks from Ana Gonzales – City Neighborhood Council Representative

Updates on Waban and Near-Waban Asset Developments: 

1. St. Philip Neri Church – title problem

2. Riverside Development – Sewer, storm water, schools, and traffic (Possibility of being voted on by end of year).

3. Hospice of Good Shepherd Property (Engine 6) – Report on mtg held on Sept. 23.

4. Angier – Waban Construction Feedback Process and General Update.

5. Zervas – Working Group Update.

Tri-Council Candidates’ Night – Newton Mayoral, Aldermen-at-Large and School Committee Candidates

Waban Area Council Election Procedures Update:

Sept. 17 - Nomination papers available at City Hall Election Dept.

Oct. 4 - Nomination papers due back at City Hall Election Dept. by end of business day.

Oct. 11 - Signatures verified and Candidates List available.

Oct. 24 - Candidates Night for Waban Council positions at Waban Library Center

Oct. 31, Nov 1, and Nov 4 – Early voting at Election Dept. at City Hall, pending Board of Aldermen approval.

Nov. 5 - City Election - (Waban Area Council’s Councilor Election to be held at Zervas School only.)

Waban Improvement Society Updates

New Business – Volunteer to attend November meeting to learn the process of applying for CPA funds to bring Waban Library Center up to ADA Compliance level. Funding for FY 2015.

Adjourn : Next Meeting: Thursday, October 24 , 2013 at 7:30pm, Waban Library Center. (Abbreviated meeting, followed by Waban Area Council Candidates’ Night)

PLEASE DON’T FORGET TO BRING YOUR ITEMS FOR THE FOOD PANTRY (TUNA, PEANUT BUTTER AND SHAMPOO)

Location

Waban Library Center
United States
Meeting Date: 
Thursday, September 26, 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.