1986-06-BOS-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Upon mo du i v made and seco i t was v o ted t author the s taff t o rri c! !) p �� a 1 i d u - p e e d a rf d a a c r ? �� t t �,r i �# e e # ,�i i± �`� = t�� o f f i c i a S � requested and that the Town i s sat i s f i ed wi th the Yr -fad al i gnment proposed. mood F u rt h e r, t h a t t h e pla i s see as t -he f l n a i de to imP # e n t o R 2A ,.3t t�, E; 'Qa Yd _,J;: } i t = tr , ;. ee t : e pY i � t e'x;prr- BEDFORD STREET Mr, Cooke rev i eq4ed the hi story of plans for improvement with Bedford S treet a s howed a p l a n devel s e v eral y ear �- ago, wh ich was to ha �l e mo v ed f o rwar d is Area residents opposed the plan, which pro;si ded ric direct access to Eldred Street an had other features they con o bJ ec t i o n abl e , su ch as the number of lanes and lack of green space. The North Lexington Road Improvement StudV Committee was formed and gave its recornmendat ions for a revis plan, which wa s. developed bkj 6SC E t acc these recorraiendat i ores The State did not accept the compromise p l a n , dh i of 1 y because of traffic lights and direct access. to Eldred Street, whi it was felt would cause back -ups during peak hours, but the State still felt that the plans could not be approved with the Eldred Street lights. M Cooke recapped State DPW latest requirements on the compromise, stated in a letter dated June 4, 1986, which he said showed inconsistencies t4i th p ri or approvals. G Bu C o f t North Lexington Road improvements Study r C o m m i t t e e , stated that the 1 , 984 plan brad been unacceptable to all in North L e x i n g to n e x c ep t for th b u s in e s s c He felt it imperative to push Ir I o rwar d #r'ii ' t� 1 t he comp r orf1 i se p I an r Mr . M r e s p onded that the -.i tuat i on shifuld be pu t i n to p ersp ect ive and that even thoug E' reci nc t - 7 had opp osed th 1984 P lan a large portion of the Town had accepted i t ; He felt the State' disfavor of the Eldred Street light could be legitimate Wi th re gard to hack, -ups t the r arr €p and that if the n evrjer p l a n i s no accep q u i ck. l v , the 1 P l a n should be implemented, Mr. E S on s a id he w no a t h e p tf i n t of qi } t i n up on t h e c o mpr om is e P lan and was i ,,12 11 i ng to tr,v for i t = approval u ntil con z� i nced that the State h ser i o u s v consi the c oncession s made becau o n o b i ec t i O r = s . He added that he f elt the r es i der€ i s t,,io u 1 d be willing t o g i o e up the Eldred Street lights during peak hours to have it available at other times. Mr. Dailey noted that a great deal of time had been spent developing a good plan and felt that exploration should be rude as to the po i bi 1 i t ,_ of i t s approval before g i v i n g up on : t , Mrs.. Smith a f elt i was cici s t e p l__l re a ll p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and make ever} effort to get d e f i n i t i v e ar s Hier s as t n- the reasons the plan is unacceptable. She was in agreement with Mr. Marshal v iew on the Eldred St. light, adding that it could be a stumbling block. Mr. Hutchinson said that at this critical point, State officials at are app ropriate level should be met € i th and asked for spec li t i c reasons for di and if the Eldred Street i ictht is the rmajo reason for the State's position- #.