MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard J. White, Town Manager
FROM: Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
DATE: Thursday, February 01, 2007
SUBJECT: TSAC Minutes from Thursday, January 25, 2007
Meeting called to order at 7:05PM.
Members present:
· Michele Karas, Municipal Hearing Officer
· Police Chief David Goldstein, Chair
· Fire Chief Larry Powers
· David Hickey, DPW Director
· Michael DiLuiso, Resident representative
· Joe Montalto, Resident representative
· Ed Cox, Resident representative
The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee met on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 7PM to discuss the following issues brought before us:
Resident Parking Permit Program:
Posted agenda/notice.
LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) will conduct a public ascertainment hearing on Thursday, January 25, 2007 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Second Floor Conference Room at the Town Hall at 1 Metcalf Square, Winthrop MA.
The purpose of the hearing will be to review the performance of the current town wide Residential Parking Permit Program since its commencement, July 1, 2005 and to hear testimony on future program-related needs, issues, concerns and interests of the Winthrop community.
Interested parties are encouraged to attend and offer testimony on any matters pertaining to the Residential Parking Permit Program. ~For instance, tell us if you are satisfied with the current program, its benefits or issues you have encountered; what is needed to expand the program, its future benefits. ~These testimonies will aid the TSAC in constructing a recommendation regarding this program, which will be presented to the Town Manager, Richard White and the Council. ~~[1/11, 1/18 W]
Request from Town Manager to have the TSAC review the program regarding the town’s town-wide Resident Parking Permit Program.
TSAC prepared for a public hearing to have all residents appear to make their testimony regarding the program. This hearing would aid the TSAC in constructing a recommendation regarding this program to be presented to the Town Manager and the Council.
“Motion for a vote on Billows Street”
Chair opened the floor for discussion on the first agenda item under OLD BUSINESS.
Discussion:
Michele Karas, Municipal Hearing Officer stated that this was discussed in prior TSAC meeting and based on a recommendation on footage a formal vote is needed by the Town Manager to present to the Council for the bylaw to be amended.
Tim Fife of 31 Billows Street had e-mailed Michele regarding Billows Street and is in favor of the 38 feet placement of signage recommendation by the DPW Director, Mr. Hickey.
Genia Cerulli of 29 Triton Avenue asked where the sign would be placed. DPW Director responded that there are two poles there; one at approximately 20 feet and the other at approximately 55 feet. The sign would be placed past the entrance between the two at 38 feet.
Chair asks that the motion be read.
Michele read the motion for TSAC to vote on the following:
After reviewing and measuring the area, the TSAC recommends the sign be moved to 38 feet from the intersection as opposed to the present 55 feet.
Motion seconded by David Hickey, Jr., DPW Director.
TSAC Vote - Unanimous.
Recommendation:
TSAC unanimously recommends the sign be moved to 38 feet from the intersection as opposed to the present 55 feet.
In addition, the following bylaw change is to be presented by the Town Manager to the Council for a formal vote as a bylaw change, which should read as follows:
§ 275-39. Parking prohibited upon certain streets.
Upon the following streets or parts of streets thereof, parking is hereby prohibited:
Billows Avenue [Changed mm/dd/yyyy] East
From the intersection of Billows Avenue and Triton Avenue to a point 38 feet southerly
“Discussion re: traffic safety upon entering and exiting Golden Drive”
Chair opened the floor for discussion on the second agenda item under OLD BUSINESS.
Chief Powers is the first to speak on the topic. He states, “There have been numerous requests from various residents from Golden Drive on requests from bus stops to be located across the street from Golden Drive, for a crosswalk, stop lights, stop signs, traffic signals. Based on engineering standards and because of the location – being at the bottom of a hill, on a curve – it is a very poor place for any of those options to be implemented.”
In addition, Chief Powers recommends that a motion be put on the floor for a formal vote by the TSAC for the following:
A brochure to be created by the TSAC outlining the Golden Drive area, addressing the issues rose by its residents, outlining feasibility and why the Town cannot implement those requests. It would be an educational booklet which the Director, Jimmy Garrett of the Housing Authority agreed to post and distribute to all its residents.
Michele seconds that motion.
Chair calls for a formal vote by all members.
TSAC Vote – Unanimous.
Robert DiMento of 89 Cottage Avenue asked to be heard and to make a recommendation regarding Golden Drive. He stated, “This is issue is not a new issue, it is been talked about by various boards, committees and on Town Meeting floor. He recently has been seeing around town the high visibility crosswalk signs. He is impressed with how much they call attention to the crosswalks; they work! He asks that the TSAC look to erect signs that would assist in that area, such as the ones used for crosswalks.”
DPW Director, David Hickey agrees that signs would assist in that area. Instead of at the foot of the hill, he would recommend the high visibility sign be placed at the apex of the hill to warn motorist ahead of time, and to put another speed limit sign in the area too.
DiMento commented that speed is an issue, as well as, traffic is hard to see entering and exiting. He also recommends that enforcement be looked at for specific times during the day. He commented at what a great job the visibility and presence of the police, the speed traps, and enforcement within the Point Area. It is making a difference.
David Hickey, DPW Director states he will look into the standards and come up with some appropriate signage for that area. Again to be placed at the apex of the hill, denoting something in the area of: slow down, speed limit, increased pedestrian activity.
Chief Powers commented, “in the past “middle of the road” sign did not work; they got run over shortly after they were placed there.”
Recommendation:
TSAC unanimously recommends a booklet be created and distributed.
Michele has sent an eMail on Thursday, February 01, 2007, to the TSAC members, assigning tasks for its members for this booklet to be completed and ready for distribution by February 19, 2007.
Request submitted to be placed on the TSAC’s next meeting, February 15, 2007 agenda for a written report, recommendation and a formal vote regarding signage for the area of Golden Drive to be presented by David Hickey. David Hickey, Ed Cox, and Joe Montalto, members of the TSAC board who have expertise regarding the state standards, will do the review of area.
“Resident Permit Program”
Chair opened the floor for discussion on the primary agenda item under NEW BUSINESS – Winthrop’s Resident Permit Program.
Genia Cerulli of 29 Triton Avenue was the first to talk about her praise and concerns with the program.
She stated that there are still many cars in her neighborhood that are not complying with the law especially the resident sticker program. She knows they are residents; she states they have been here since either August or September of 2006. She expressed an ongoing issue of persons blocking her driveway and construction going on in the neighborhood that has added to the parking issues. Two weeks ago a truck not only blocked her driveway but also parked on the sidewalk, cracking it. She has reported these issues numerous times. But feels that it is not her job to police the neighborhood and call on every scofflaw. She expressed there is a car with no Massachusetts inspection sticker, a car with a Somerville resident sticker, and others with no Winthrop resident permits and misusing the
visitor passes. Why, she asks? Her frustration is with consistent enforcement. She stated she wrote a note to the resident in response to her being “New to the Area” and offered her assistance to understand the laws regarding parking. She expressed this is a loss in revenue for the town. She pleaded with the Board that something needs to be done regarding enforcement. She stated people don’t have an issue paying the $5 for the permit, but they do have issues with the people that don’t conform within the program and the law. Mrs. Cerulli handed over the list of registrations that are not complying with the law to the police chief. The chief stated he would follow up on these immediately.
David Hickey, DPW Director interjected asking, “If there were resources for ticketing to be more prevalent, in general do you like the program; do you feel it is working?”
Genia responded, “Yes, I am fully in favor of the resident permit program and people that worked on it have done a lot and a great job with it. Even if she has to pay the $5, it is worth it; it works! She stressed, she is just frustrated with the people that are flaunting the law.”
Chief Goldstein, asked “How does everyone in the audience feel in regards to the way the program is structured: do you want it to stay the way it is, expand the hours it encompasses, go 24-hours?”
Consensus from the audience is the following:
· No to going 24 hours;
· Want to see an increase in enforcement of laws pertaining to parking violations town wide;
Genia stated, “If we are looking for tourism, going 24 hours will hurt that endeavor.”
Mr. DiMento of 89 Cottage Avenue stated the following, “I am here tonight because I am in fear that the program is going to be eliminated. It is one of the most positive things we have ever done and the truth is that we have to enforce it and be consistent with it. I have talked to people and they acknowledge that when they have gotten a parking violation it was their fault – either their window was down, bought a new car. Those people were not upset in getting the ticket but were upset of the inconsistency of enforcement, the people not getting tagged for the same or other violations on the same street. He states that he thinks the revenue brought in by parking tickets could fund, or assist the patrol officers in justifying them out there to enforce the
program.”
DiMento continued, “The Council should take this information and look at the facts and figures of revenue that comes into the town from parking fines, excise (new residents and properly registering vehicles). He stated he talked to Nick Basso, Tax Collector and Nick said on average there are five (5) motorists complying with the laws per month that has increased the motor vehicle revenue he collects each year.”
DiMento added, “The real issue that needs to be looked at is Winthrop Shore Drive regarding resident permits and commercial vehicles. Those people are avoiding the law and that roadway sits in Winthrop.” He expressed not understanding why we, Winthrop, do not have control over that roadway regarding those violations. He recommended that the Town Manager along with the Council contact the state (DCR) and work with them to recognize our town bylaws.
Chief Goldstein expressed that the town has written numerous letters to the state on those same issues on Winthrop Shore Drive but have not received any correspondence as of yet. This is something the town should revisit.
Again, DiMento revisited, consistent enforcement, manpower. Michele interrupted and expressed that the committee (TSAC) has a solution to that which the police are open to. It will be part of the recommendation to the Town Manager and Council – Privatizing Parking Enforcement.
DiMento asked, “Would that enforcement go beyond this resident program?” Michele responded, “Yes, the parking enforcement agent would be sworn in to uphold and write tags for all parking laws under our town bylaws.”
Chief Goldstein reiterated, “Again regarding the program, should the recommendations include doing away with it, expanding it, or keeping it.
An resident wished to express his issues pertaining to the program but wished not to be recognized, he did not give his name but did state that he resided in the area of Temple Avenue and Quincy Avenue.
The floor recognized him. He stated that he had hopes for the program to address the issues in his neighborhood, especially with the people that he believed to be “airlines personnel.” But no one has been tagged and they are not complying with the program, or laws. Issues with misuse of visitor passes, out-of-state vehicles. Compliance is the issue. He expressed that he believes the police are not behind the program.
He expressed, “The program should work, the program can work!” He has seen when a person got a couple tickets; they now have their resident permit on their vehicle. Parking is a premium. In closing, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the responses and assistance he has received by the police department. The chief gave the resident his personal line and asked him to contact him at that phone number.
Members of the TSAC raised cost of the resident sticker – keep it at $5? Michele stated even if we get rid of the cost, which an issue that people may be complaining about, could be waived but felt that the program itself has to stay with all outstanding parking tickets and excise bills have to be paid in full before given a resident sticker for that application year. Even if it is free, we are going to have people that will not conform to the program.
Closing comments: Overall consensus from attendees was to keep the program but step up enforcement.
Recommendation:
The TSAC unanimously agree that the program is working. For the few complaints some may have received, that does not mean the program overall is a failure. The TSAC agrees that the program overall is a success and now needed to be revisited to address some points that can add to the program’s continued success.
The TSAC unanimously agree to retain the Resident Permit Program outlined as follows:
· Retain the same hours of coverage --- 1AM to 5AM;
· Increase enforcement --- ask the Town Manager and Council to allow the town to put out an RFP for privatizing parking enforcement with handheld units. The Parking Clerk is to provide to the Town Manager and Council backup documentation of past inquiries for such a program, the projected costs and revenue.
· Retain the $5 charge for the resident permit;
· Retain the free visitor pass distribution per household;
· Change the visitor pass to a hanging placard that would hang from the rear-view mirror (more visibility). Have the hanging visitor pass the same color of that year’s resident permit (may help officers to see it is a valid V.P.) Police have trouble not being able to see the visitor pass within vehicles; either jammed so deep into the windshield, or covered by papers, or the expiration date, year; would eliminate the duplication of visitor passes - people Xeroxing them, etc.); and
· Increased publication and education program.
In addition, the parking clerk will be submitting to the Town Manager reports on parking ticket and excise activity and revenue for the past five years with projection reports.
Open Floor Discussions:
“Possible 4-way stop at Hermon/Pauline/Winthrop intersection”
Discussion:
Councilor Gill stated, “this intersection is a disaster waiting to happen and lets not address the issue – be proactive not reactive. We now have a school back in that area adding children and traffic to the area. There is a school, it is a heavy business district, and there is the town hall, library, police department and church. There are speeding motorists having the ability to go through the intersection with out stopping. In addition, parking has impeded their visibility of pedestrians, cars, and children.
David Hickey requested that he would draw a formal proposal and sketch to be presented to the Town Manager with a resolution to address that intersection that conforms with the state’s standards and warrants. One that has formal crosswalk that will join the library/town hall walkway with the municipal parking lot, high visibility pedestrian signage with no change in the current bylaws.
This issue was requested to be posted on the next TSAC meeting agenda (February 15, 2007); a request has been sent via eMail to the DPW Director to prepare a draft report to be available for that meeting. EMail request sent by board member to post on the agenda, a request for a formal vote to be taken at the TSAC February 15, 2007 meeting based on David Hickey’s report/solution for the Hermon/Pauline/Winthrop Street intersection.
“Making Bay View and Siren Street One-Way”
Discussion:
Genia Cerulli asked on behalf of her neighbors, “What is the process was for this recommendation to be heard?”
The TSAC stated that all requests have to be submitted to the Town Manager’s attention in written form and reviewed by him before being accepted or placed as an agenda item. She stated she would convey that to her neighbors.
“Request for a Traffic Study to be conducted by the Town”
Discussion:
Jack Dowd asked if the town has thought of or has conducted a traffic study on how long it would take a motorist to go from “X” to “Y” from certain time frames throughout a day especially with the increased construction projects, like Atlantis, the Hospital, Crystal Cove?
The police chief stated, “The TSAC has not been asked to conduct such a study. In addition, this type of study would fall more so under the Planning Board pertaining to each project submitted for the town’s review. At such application time, it would be on the applicant’s behalf that a study be conducted regarding the impact with regards to parking and traffic that project would have on the community.
Jack Dowd expressed that type of study is only project specific and he would like the town to look into a study that is inclusive with all projects.
“Traffic light Beachmont and Winthrop Parkway”
Discussion:
Jack Dowd expressed further difficulty with traffic if and when that light is erected impacting the Winthrop residents coming in and leaving Winthrop.
“Angle Parking at Lewis Lake”
Discussion:
Jack Dowd expressed that he is an advocate of wintertime parking but there is an issue with safety to allow angle parking on Veterans Road at Lewis Lake. He stated, Eight (8) years ago a project at Yirrell Beach was presented where they wanted angle parking and per a neighbor in that area, they agreed not to have angle parking under the zoning bylaw book.
Mr. Dowd read, pertaining to the “last sentence under Town bylaw Chapter 145, section 29 (E) which reads, “In no case shall parking lots be designed to require or encourage cars to back into a public or private way in order to leave the lot.”
He was asked by the Parking Clerk to read the Chapter and section in its entirety. She expressed that reading one section of the law can be interpreted differently, taken out of context. The whole law has to be read in its entirety so it can fully understood in which the context of the law governs, allows or prohibits.
The following is taken from the current town bylaws for your review pertaining to Chapter 145, Section 29 in its entirety:
§ 145-29. Design of off-street parking facilities.
A. Parking facilities shall be occupied only by passenger cars and commercial vehicles not exceeding 7.5 feet in width and 18 feet in length, unless the special standards provided in Subsection H of this section are met.
B. The minimum dimensions of stalls and aisles shall be as follows:
(1) Stall width shall be at least nine feet.
(2) Stall depth shall be at least 19 feet for all angle parking and 22 feet for parallel parking. Such dimensions may include no more than two feet of any landscaped setback area adjacent to the front or rear of a stall and used for bumper overhang.
(3) Minimum width of aisles providing access to stalls for one-way traffic only, varying with the angle of parking shall be:
Angle of Parking Minimum Aisle Width (feet)
Parallel 12
30° 12
45° 15
60° 20
90° 24
(4) Minimum width of aisles providing access to stalls for two-way traffic shall be 24 feet, except that aisles providing access primarily for overnight parking may be a minimum of 20 feet.
C. Parking facilities shall be designed so that each motor vehicle may proceed to and from the parking space provided for it without requiring the moving of any other motor vehicle. The BA, however, may by special permit modify this requirement and the dimensional requirements of Subsection B of this section where a parking facility is under full-time attendant supervision.
D. The width of entrance and exit drives, except as permitted in Subsection J, shall be:
(1) A minimum of 12 feet for one-way use only.
(2) A minimum of 20 feet for two-way use, except that driveways providing access primarily for overnight parking, with incidental daytime use, may be a minimum 12 feet wide.
(3) A maximum of 20 feet at the street lot line in residence districts and 30 feet in business and industrial districts.
E. Setbacks for parking areas shall be provided as follows:
(1) In all districts, except as permitted in Subsection J of this section, parking stalls in parking lots shall be set back from the street lot line to whatever extent may be necessary in the specific situation, as determined by the Building Inspector, to avoid the probability of cars backing or otherwise maneuvering on the sidewalk upon entering or leaving the stalls. In no case shall parking lots be designed to require or encourage cars to back into a public or private way in order to leave the lot.
(2) In multifamily residential use districts, the surfaced area of a parking lot and all entrance and exit drives shall be set back a minimum of three feet from all lot lines, except where an access driveway crosses the street lot line. Such setback shall be five feet where two feet of setback area is included in minimum stall depth as provided in Subsection B(2) of this section.
(3) In single- and two-family residential use districts, the surfaced area of a parking lot and all entrance and exit drives shall be set back as follows:
(a) From the front line, except where an access driveway crosses the street lot line, either the distance specified for building setback or the average of the setbacks of the buildings on the adjacent lots on either side, whichever is less. Such setback area shall be landscaped and maintained.
(b) From the side lot line in the side yard, a distance of two feet.
(c) From the side and rear lot lines in the rear yard, a minimum of three feet. Such setback shall be five feet where two feet of setback area is included in the minimum stall depth as provided in Subsection B(2) of this section.
(4) In all districts, barricades shall be provided to prevent motor vehicles from being parked within required setback areas or beyond the boundaries of the lot where no setback is required.
F. Abutting properties in residential districts shall be protected from adverse impacts of nonresidential or multifamily development as follows:
(1) All illumination on parking lots must be shielded so as not to shine upon abutting properties in residential districts.
(2) Properties in residential districts (other than the use served by the parking lot) which abut the parking lot shall be protected from visual or noise pollution or headlight glare by either:
(a) A strip at least four feet wide, densely planted with shrubs or trees which are at least four feet high at the time of planting and which are on a type that may be expected to form a year-round dense screen at least six feet high within three years.
(b) A wall, barrier or fence of uniform appearance at least five feet high, but not more than seven feet above finished grade, or above the roof level, if on a roof. Such wall, barrier or fence may be opaque or perforated, provided that not more than 50% of the face is open.
(3) Such screening shall be maintained in good condition at all times and shall not be permitted to exceed seven feet in height within required side yards. Such screening or barrier may be interrupted by normal entrances or exits and shall have no signs hung or attached thereto other than those permitted in the district.
G. No stall shall be located within 10 feet of that part of a building having windows of habitable rooms at the basement or first story level, except as permitted in Subsection J of this section.
H. The regulations for the parking of trucks, buses or other commercial vehicles exceeding 71/2 feet by 18 feet in size shall be as follows:
(1) Stalls to provide parking for commercial vehicles exceeding 71/2 feet by 18 feet in size shall be located at least 100 feet from the nearest dwelling unit in a residence district.
(2) Stalls for such vehicles shall be specifically identified upon the site plan and shall be of such dimensions as to accommodate the specified type of vehicles. Such vehicle shall be permitted to park only in the stall so identified and approved.
(3) Whenever such lot is adjacent to a residential district, it shall be screened from abutting property as provided in Subsection F above.
(4) Drainage, surfacing and maintenance of parking lots shall be as follows:
(a) The parking lot shall be marked so as to indicate clearly the space to be occupied by each motor vehicle, in accordance with the dimensions specified in Subsection B of this section. Such markings shall be maintained so as to be plainly visible.
(b) The area of the lot not landscaped and so maintained, including driveways, shall be graded, surfaced with asphalt or other suitable material and drained to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, to the extent necessary to prevent nuisance of dust, erosion or excessive water flow across public ways.
(c) Lots shall be kept clean and free from rubbish and debris.
I. The preceding regulations shall not apply to parking lots built and in use before the effective date of this article, except as follows:
(1) Where parking lots are increased in capacity after the effective date of this article, the expanded portion thereof shall be designated in accordance with regulations of this section.
J. Parking lots for four vehicles or fewer shall conform to the regulations of this section, with the exception of Subsections D(1) and (2), E(1) and G. [Amended 4-23-1990 ATM by Art. 21]
In addition, the TSAC would like to include for your review from our current bylaws regarding Angle Parking, Article IV, Stopping, Standing and Parking under Chapter 275: Vehicles and Traffic:
§ 275-38. Angle parking.
A. The Board of Selectmen shall determine upon what streets angle parking will be permitted and shall mark or sign such streets or cause the same to be marked or signed.
B. Upon the following streets or parts of streets, which have been marked or signed for angle parking, vehicles shall be parked with one wheel within 12 inches of the curb and at the angle to the curb indicated by such marks or official signs. The vehicles shall be parked so that all four wheels of the vehicle shall be placed wholly within the painted lines provided: Woodside Avenue, westerly side, from the southwesterly crosswalk at the junction of Somerset Avenue to the crosswalk at the junction of Bartlett Road and the southerly curve at the intersection of Bartlett Road and Woodside Avenue.
“Cottage Park Road – prior TSAC agenda item from August 17, 2006; What was the recommendation/vote?”
Discussion:
Mr. DiMento asked if the town was going to put the double yellow line in the road?
There was no recommendation for double yellow lines to be placed in that area.
The following is an excerpt from the TSAC, August 17, 2006 meeting minutes:
Parking on Terrace Ave. from Park Ave. to Cottage Ave.
David Hickey, DPW Director requested to abstain from this issue; potential conflict of interest and he will not be voting for recommendation on this issue.
Mr. Nick Delvento spoke on behalf of residents that could not attend. Mrs. Judy McLaughlin was not able to attend and Mr. Delvento submitted email correspondence on her behalf outlining her concerns.
Mr. Ron Sturges of Park Avenue also spoke on the issue. Mr. Sturges stated his wife was hit twice on two different occasions at the junction of Park and Terrace. He suggests a stop sign to be erected to give direction to who has the right of way.
Mrs. Judy McLaughlin wrote that parking was restricted by the DPW and they would like that changed back to give more parking spaces for the residents. Mr. Sturges stated that there are fifteen (15) homes to which only five (5) of them have driveways. Parking is a premium in that area.
Requests of yellow lines to be painted from Park to Shirley and Park to Terrace indicating the flow of traffic that it is two-way was voiced.
Mr. Sturges also voiced concern for the speed to which motorist travel those roads. Asked for better signage stating, they are traveling sometimes up to or greater than 30MPH. Mike Diluiso stated that there is a sign stating it is a 20MPH zone; people are just ignoring it.
Recommendation:
After listening to the testimony from residents on this issue from that area, it is determined that issues raised are concerns of a neighborhood issue.
There is a speed limit sign right on Shirley Street that states 20MPH; police will patrol area to enforce motorists who disobey the speed limit.
TSAC voted – 1 ABSTAIN/RECUSE and 6 AGAINST- making a recommendation on the request for allowing parking where it is currently restricted/prohibited. This decision was based on concerns of sight lines by motorists and most importantly of emergency vehicles voiced by the police and fire [fire apparatus and ambulances].
Meeting adjourned at 8:50PM.
Meeting minutes respectfully submitted by Michele Karas.
| 
