HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-04-WALKS-minLexington Sidewalk Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 4, 2013, 9 AM
Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building
Present: Mary Hosmer Fanucci, Bettina McGimsey, Francine Stieglitz, Jerry Van Hook, Members absent:
Judy Crocker, Jeanne Canale; Liaisons: Deb Mauger (BOS), Marc Valenti (DPW), Elaine Celi
(Transportatio); Guests: Dave Cannon (DPW), John Livsey (DPW), Bill Hadley (DPW), residents of the
Winthrop Street neighborhood (a scanned copy of the sign -in sheet appears at the end of these minutes)
The meeting of the Sidewalk Committee (SWC) was called to order at 9:05 AM by Jerry Van Hook. It was
decided to move the discussion of Winthrop Road to the first place on the agenda.
1. Proposed Winthrop Road sidewalk: Mr. Van Hook began the discussion with an overview of the
Sidewalk Committee: that it was formed in 2005 and its primary objective is to enhance walking
throughout Lexington, with a particular focus on the safety of children as they walk to school. He noted
that the all- volunteer committee meets monthly to discuss issues of pedestrian interest to the Town.
Francine Stieglitz handles the correspondence log, and Judy Crocker is the current Chair of the SWC.
Any resident with an issue is free to contact the SWC via the website or to email Ms. Crocker. Recently,
the SWC developed guidelines for people who are interested in new sidewalks for their neighborhood
due to vehicular traffic and the need for children and other pedestrians to walk safely. Proponents come
to the SWC to describe the scope of the sidewalk project and are then asked to follow the recommended
guidelines to create a petition. They are told that the procedure is long, and it is up to them to keep it
going. Lacking this support, the SWC may end its involvement.
He noted that at the meeting DPW was represented by Marc Valenti, Dave Cannon, John Livsey, and
Bill Hadley. Deb Mauger was representing the Board of Selectmen. He then described how the meeting
would then proceed: The first person to speak would be Dan Krupka of 40 Winthrop Road Mr. Krupka
had asked for five minutes to make a prepared statement to be read into the minutes. Next proponents _ - Deleted: Mr. Krupka had asked for
would speak. Once both sides had been heard, the Engineering Department of DPW would elaborate on five minutes to make a prepared
the plans for the sidewalk. Mr. Van Hook noted that initial discussions on Winthrop Road were first statement to be read into the
reported on in the March 2010 minutes of the SWC. minutes.
Mr. Krupka began with a short summary of his complaint, noting that he was representing 10 abutters
who are opposed to the sidewalk. He stated that the need for the sidewalk was never established by
quantitative analysis, that there is minimal foot traffic, and that the process followed did not include
adequate participation of the abutters. He said that the design fails to preserve the non -urban nature of
the neighborhood, and environmental impacts were not taken into account. He then read the text of the
opponents' statement and asked for its inclusion verbatim along with the signed list of supporters in the
SWC minutes.
Statement from abutters of the proposed Winthrop Road sidewalk
We are here to register a complaint regarding the process followed by the Sidewalk Committee
(SWQ in planning and promoting the installation of a sidewalk on Winthrop Road and adjoining
streets, and to request that the project be abandoned.
The process was initiated without the collection and analysis of data regarding vehicular and
pedestrian traffic and other factors that should be considered in establishing the need for a sidewalk.
As the process progressed, supported primarily by non - abutters, abutters were not kept informed of
plans, and were not given the opportunity to comment on them in a public forum
In addition, upon review of the minutes of the Sidewalk Committee for 2010, 2011 and 2012 and
comparison of their record and the recollections of abutters, we note the following:
1. From the minutes of October 2011: 'All abutters have now been contacted ...According to
Ms. Hai only two abutters have voiced opposition to this plan. "Abutters' recollections:
Many deny they were contacted; many of them state they would have opposed it. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
2. From the minutes offovember 2011: According to Committee member Jerry Van Hook,
"(f)irst and foremost, abutters need to agree that a sidewalk is necessary. "Abutters'
recollections: No evidence that a poll of abutters was taken.
3. From the minutes of December 2011: 'Jill Hai reported that, since last meeting with the
SWC, she and her committee have contacted all houses on Winthrop Road, except for two.
As of December 5, 2011, two abutters oppose the sidewalk. "Abutters' recollections: Many
deny being contacted.
4. From the minutes of January 2012: 'John ivse and Marc Valenti advised Jill (Hai) to ensure - - Deleted: Livesy
a smooth process by discussing the proposal with as many abutters as possible. "From
abutters' recollection and minutes of subsequent meetings of the SWC: We have no evidence
this step was taken.
5. From the minutes of March 2012: "There is also some landscaping issues to be addressed
and Ms. Hai said she would work with the neighborhood towards this end. "From abutters'
recollection and minutes of subsequent meetings of the SWC: We have no evidence that this
took place.
The above evidence demonstrates that the Sidewalk Committee turned the execution of the process
to proponents of the sidewalk, and did not verify the data and information they supplied. As a result
it did not act in an unbiased manner with regard to the interests of the abutters.
In light of these irregularities, we respectfully request that the SWC (a) notify the Board of
Selectmen of the flaws in the process leading to the approval of the sidewalk; (b) request that the
Winthrop Road project be abandoned; and (c) recommend to the Board of Selectmen the
development of a fact - based, equitable, and unbiased process.
We, the undersigned, abutters to the sidewalk proposed for Winthrop Road, have approved the
document entitled 'Statement from abutters of the proposed Winthrop Road sidewalk to be read
into the minutes of the Sidewalk Committee meeting, February 4, 2013"
(A copy of the signatures appears at the end of these minutes.)
Following Mr. Krupka's reading, and without comment thereon, Mr. Van Hook asked for comment by
the proponents:
Laura Kerper, 6 Winthrop Road: She noted that she was one of the original instigators of the
sidewalk. She said that her end of Winthrop does have a sidewalk. However, when her kids
were at the high school, she feared for their lives when they walked to school on the busy street
with traffic. She noted that the street is used by both LHS and Clarke Middle School students.
While she can't respond to how the SWC handled the process, she, Lauren Aguirre, and Trish
Green knocked on every door. If someone answered, they were asked to sign the petition. They
then returned a second time, if still not there, they left the petition to sign and to be left at Jill
Hai's house. To her knowledge, no one returned one of these petitions. For the two to three
houses where they did not speak directly to a resident, they asked neighbors to discuss the
sidewalk with them. They attempted to speak to everyone who abutted.
Lauren Aguirre, 17 Winthrop Road: She noted that they left a letter with a stamped envelope to
be returned to Lauren. She started working on this issue in 2010. She moved to Lexington 17
years ago and has always been worried about the lack of a sidewalk. It is important that middle
and high school children be able to walk safely to school. This is why she supports the sidewalk.
Claire Sheth, 22 Vinebrook Road: She noted that Mr. Krupka had mentioned an absence of data
on pedestrian travel. She stated that she has four children herself and that on Winthrop and the
neighboring streets of Vinebrookand Sherburne down to Waltham there are 55 -60 children who _ - Deleted: e
are of high school age or younger. This is a neighborhood where folks are constantly walking
into Town Center. At the same time Winthrop Road is a major vehicular cut - through road from
Waltham to Mass Ave. Later in the meeting she noted that within the immediate walking area
are three deaf children and one with cerebral palsy.
• Mardy Rawls, 9 Winthrop Road: She stated that she has not been an active participant in this
process. She has lived in Lexington for 53 years. She raised four children who walked down
Winthrop to LHS. Back then it was a dangerous road but nothing like it is now. She herself
would like to walk on Winthrop, but it is too dangerous. She noted there are children who walk
on this dangerous road. Later in the meeting she also noted that property owners do not own the
right of way where the sidewalks would be placed.
• Trish Green, 7 Winthrop Road: She noted that she has been involved with this process from the
very start. She said that she and the other people all had kids and were worried about how busy
Winthrop Road was. They went to the SWC meetings, were told to talk with their neighbors,
and then develop the petition. They did so and returned to the SWC and were then told to talk
with more neighbors. At that point, if people didn't answer the door, they left a letter. The
process has taken three years. The sidewalk on Winthrop Road folds into the Safe Routes to
School plan — the fact that kids have to walk in the street to school is unacceptable. She
understands that people are upset that they will lose frontage; however, this addresses a safety
issue.
• Ellie Blake, Vinebrook Road: She said that she had two children who went through the school
system. She said she had been notified by the petitioners multiple times. Regarding the lack of
data, she said that everyone has their set of the number of accidents they have almost had on
Winthrop Road.
At this point in the discussion, Claire Bauer of 44 Winthrop Road, an opponent of the sidewalk,
spoke. She noted that while she may have been in favor of a sidewalk, she was currently opposed
due to the process by which the petition was undertaken. She said that she had been contacted once
and had received the petition. She asked that there be a discussion about this, but she never heard
back from the petitioners. She did not hear anything more about this issue until she got the letter
from DPW regarding the construction of the sidewalk. She noted that there should be a forum that
allows for discussion that would enable a fair process.
Mr. Van Hook noted at this point that the SWC meets every month and publishes its minutes on the
website. It is always possible to see whether Winthrop Road has been discussed. Ms. Bauer noted
that if people do not know that something is an issue, they don't know to look for it. She was never
contacted again. If there had been an open forum, she would have been there to discuss this.
Deb Mauger asked how abutters were defined — were these just Winthrop Road residents or residents
of the surrounding neighborhood? She also asked about the current status of the project.
At this point proponents of the sidewalk rose again to speak:
• Francesca Pfrommer, 195 Waltham Street: She noted that she has three children, one of whom
uses Winthrop Road to walk to Clarke Middle School. She raised the issue of solar glare that
prevents drivers from seeing children as they walk in the road. She also noted that despite
parent's objections, children continue to walk in the road. She also noted that the crosswalk
across Waltham Street that is part of this project would be very welcome as Waltham is
extremely busy at the time her child walks to school.
• Jason Ross, 38 Winthrop Road: He noted that he is a direct abutter so the sidewalk would be in
front of his property. He has been aware of this process for over two years and is strongly in
favor, particularly because of the safety issues.
• Ronni Skerker, 52 Winthrop Road: She noted that the sidewalk impacts her frontage, yet she is
strong proponent. She agreed that solar glare is a large issue. She said that the crosswalk on
Waltham Street that is part of the project will allow children to cross Waltham more easily. She
has lived in her house for 15 years. Her children took the bus to Bridge and Clarke. At one
point LPS wanted to put the bus stop on Waltham Street but they couldn't because when there is
snow, there is no place for the children to walk on Winthrop. The street is a major cut - through
route for Waltham Street
Mr. Van Hook noted that Ms. Stieglitz had two copies of the petition favoring a sidewalk. The 13
different pages of signatures were obtained by proponents at different times. Sixty people were in
favor of the sidewalk. Mr. Van Hook then asked Dave Cannon of Town Engineering to speak.
Mr. Cannon noted that the interest of Town Engineering in the project predates the petition (before
March 2010). He sits on the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) and said that that
committee supports the sidewalk on Winthrop. Prior to the retirement of Charles Sargent from the
Lexington Police Department a few years ago, Mr. Cannon and he had gone to Winthrop Road to
observe. They sat in front of 55 Winthrop Road and saw groups of children coming down in the
middle of the street. TSAC voted to support a sidewalk on this road. When Engineering was asked
to look at the road, they mapped out how accessible the road would be depending on which side the
sidewalk was placed. On the north side of the road, 26 houses would be afforded same side access
without crossing the street. On the south side of the road, over 100 houses would have same side
access to the road. They also looked at constructability. On the south side of the road, all of the
sidewalk work would stay in the right of way. There would be some temporary right of way
impacts, but he has met with those abutters. Ms. Bauer of 44 Winthrop Road stated that an issue is
how close the sidewalk would be to the brook. Mr. Cannon noted that he would be filing a notice of
intent with the Conservation Commission regarding the environmental impacts. To build the
sidewalk on the north side, they would have to build a retaining wall. The conservation commission
would most likely deny this and then the project would go to the State. They would ask if there was
an alternative, which there is — building on the south side of the street.
Mr. Cannon noted that there are 11 houses on both sides of Winthrop Road where the sidewalk
would go. Six of the parcels are signatories of the petition. He has approached everyone on the
south side. Ms. Bauer asked whether these people knew what side of the road the sidewalk would go
when they signed the petition. Mr. Van Hook noted that the SWC has no purview regarding which
side of the street the sidewalk will be on. The SWC's charge is to determine whether a street needs a
sidewalk. It is up to Engineering to determine the side of the street.
Mr. Cannon noted that the south side of the street is already in use. There is a dirt path where
Engineering wants to install the sidewalk. On the north side of Winthrop, there are telephone poles,
retaining walls, and fire hydrants. At the request of a member of the audience, Mr. Cannon
described the sidewalk, which would be a five -foot wide black asphalt with a berm. He will work
with the abutters to determine whether they want a grass strip between the sidewalk and the road.
Any sprinkler work or plantings that are disrupted will be redone.
At this point Steve Perry of 28 Winthrop Road asked Mr. Cannon whether he had actually gathered
data or just made observations. He also asked whether any consideration had been given to
alternatives to sidewalk such as law enforcement. Mr. Cannon responded that the sidewalk on
Winthrop Road is warranted as the road is in non - compliance with the Town's construction
standards. He noted that he never went out to count. Mr. Perry asked again about alternatives. Ms.
Mauger noted that law enforcement in terms of speeding cars is very effective when they are there.
However, once the police are gone, people revert to speeding. For law enforcement to be an
alternative, they would have to be there every day at every hour. There is not enough police
personnel in Lexington to staff that. She then asked how this process should proceed from today on.
Mr. Van Hook noted that the SWC had learned something from this meeting. Certainly, the time and
date needs to appear on the petitions. He also wants to encourage people to come to the meetings of
the SWC, rather than waiting until Town Engineering notifies them about the construction of a
sidewalk. It is important for people to give their feedback to the SWC, particularly since it is
difficult to find the people who oppose a sidewalk project before engineering makes a final
determination, i.e., when the committee involvement is essentially over.
Jane Fanburg of 20 Sherburne Road stated that she has seen only a few students walking in the street.
She asked whether any research had been done. It would be important to have a research basis.
How many people go fast when driving on Winthrop road? She also mentioned traffic signs. Mr.
Van Hook noted that signage is under the purview of TSAC. He also noted that the SWC has a
Master List of sidewalks that looks at street usage and connectivity issues. The SWC has prioritized
streets in attempt to determine those that are the most in need of sidewalks.
Mr. Krupka made a request that the SWC examine its process. The Board of Selectmen needs to
look at the process to ensure that it is fair and democratic. He stated that any petition can have
signatories; however, unless it is mandated by a rule, then a sidewalk is discretionary and should be
left up to the abutters. Ms. Mauger asked how many direct abutters had to approve. Mr. Krupka said
a simple majority should be fine. He also stated that the solutions should not just be a sidewalk.
Ellie Blake noted that if you limit the decision only to the abutters, then you do not include many
people in the decision. Mr. Krupka noted that if there are data and regulations that support the
sidewalk, then you put it in. Without data and regulations, the sidewalk is discretionary and would _ - Deleted:
then be up to the abutters alone.
Mr. Van Hook noted that the SWC is a group acting as a sounding board for the BOS. BOS and
Town Meeting would need to approve.
Ms. Stieglitz then thanked everyone for coming. She stated that each time the SWC is presented
with a sidewalk petition process, it learns more about how to do the projects. From the Roosevelt
Road sidewalk project, the SWC learned it is important to get the neighbors on a petition. From this
process the SWC is learning that perhaps a large meeting of abutters should have been called.
At this point, most of the guests left. Discussion within the SWC continued. Mr. Van Hook noted
that he would like to know whether Mr. Krupka had any objections other than those he had regarding
the petition process. Mr. Valenti noted that opponents are looking for traffic calming measures. He
also noted that the funding of the project was approved in Town Meeting last year and that Dave
Cannon had put out notices of the project.
Bettina McGimsey noted that a meeting that included both proponents and opponents of a sidewalk
would ideally occur. Ways to get the word out about said meetings could include the Lexington
yahoo list, notices in the Minuteman, and contacting the relevant Town Meeting members. Letters
could also be sent to the abutters who would be immediately affected.
2. Review of the January minutes: Changes were identified for the January minutes but the committee did
not move to approve. This will need to be done at the March meeting.
3. Lexington Bike Walk'n Bus Week: The SWC voted to be a sponsoring committee.
4. DPW update: Marc Valenti noted that he had received a grant of $6800 from MAPC thanks to the help
of Judy Crocker to pay for the audit of all of the school zone signage. DPW Operations will manage the
project, which can begin immediately. The first step will be to perform an analysis of the signage,
establish a baseline, and then get all school zones compliant. The second step will be to get the capital
expenses approved which will be done in 2014 Town Meeting. There will be one single line item for the
total project, which will include all elementary and middle schools and will include signage, crosswalks,
and pavement markings.
Mr. Valenti also noted that the Capital Expenditures committee is looking at funding a sidewalk on
Hartwell Avenue from the bike path to Bedford Street. Mary Hosmer Fanucci suggested that it could go
all the way to Wood Street. This would enable people who take the bus to walk more easily to and from
Bedford Street. The question is whether it will go into the Hartwell Design Project. Mr. Van Hook
noted that the right of way on Hartwell Avenue is large and also that businesses should be invited to help
fund this sidewalk. It was noted that we should be wary of approving sidewalks on Hartwell when
sidewalks on residential streets such as Hill and Pleasant go unfunded. It is important for the SWC to
focus on those streets where we have no independent source of funding. Mr. Valenti noted that the costs
of putting in a sidewalk on Hartwell Ave are minimal.
Mr. Valenti noted that the Capital Expenditures Committee supports sidewalk maintenance and upgrades.
They have asked for an amount of funding that would enable the Town to adequately reconstruct and
maintain the sidewalks. He will discuss this with Bill Hadley. They need to discuss an independent
study of the condition of the sidewalks.
Mr. Valenti asked about the map that currently appears on the website — he would like to convert it to a
computerized version. Mr. Van Hook said that map had been drawn by John Davies over six years ago.
Mr. Valenti wants to compare this map to the GIS map.
The SWC then discussed the signs at Roosevelt Road. Mr. Valenti noted that the signs will most likely
need to stay where they are (on the north side of Wilson), because it is not possible to have a double -
sided pedestrian sign on the other side of the street due to a utility pole being in the way. Bettina
McGimsey suggested that perhaps the BOS should rezone the intersection so that it can become a 4 -way
stop as many in the neighborhood would prefer.
A , - Formatted: Font color: Auto
5. 4d hoc School Transportation and Safey Stud Committee TS Update: The fees for s chool bus Formatted: Font color: Auto
transportation were discussed. The real cost of the bus is $722 per student but the town has subsidized
the parent portion of the fee. Provided families sign up for the bus by the deadlines, they will not have to
pay the full cost of the bus. ` _ - Formatted: Font color: Auto
6. Updating Master Sidewalk List and Website: Mr. Valenti noted that he is gathering information from
Engineering and moving forward on the Master List.
7. Correspondence Log: Andrew Weaver has reached out to the SWC on behalf of the Peacock
Farm/Mason Street neighborhood regarding signage, a crosswalk, and sidewalk improvements on Mason
Street near the neighborhood pool. Mr. Valenti will check into this. Laurel Carpenter noted that the
snow at 100 -110 Concord had been removed, but she had never heard from TSAC. Mr. Valenti noted
that this was done within 24 hours of receiving the request. Tom Shipley wanted dirt removed on
Phinney. He will send a photo of the dirt in the spring. It was noted that this is not an issue for the SWC
8. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 AM. The next meeting of the Sidewalk Committee will be March 4
at 9 AM in the SMR.
Respectfully submitted by,
Bettina McGimsey
The following is a copy of the signatures of the abutters of the proposed Winthrop Road sidewalk who
signed Mr. Krupka's statement:
r
iz
WIYAT�
P ";,
MW 0
+
r
The following is the sign -in sheet for the February 4 SWC meeting:
.�nr' Z-vvs -i{ �a ww Ea7 r
h"F . ".c ap 0yjW Y
Own IL ION tow / dmwwmi Werr
LT SVi Ad€ Av!
J }G tic ,
at ke "O.q fr
4 s k� 5 � g{
39
Jff
d�-M1J
- 51 P-
.r ,
La,�r. �,v�•
G aim1+� -.p Q,o �4�.,Jk
Vin '
Vti5 WY K6_ s4,
q Lpwra
Pi t1n44 .P p-.k
wyr,.�iw L.�tactc�
4'�'frr'1Jrso��1�
y,,, .F►.lrr
UI�hF T tihwSD� J
LL V..,cc�. ��
iN .MNa'�
ail ph.
49 LL*FA FogR.d
FiT'gq
-�
za
you F d�i:p hf +.+, ..•rrr,w.rs
�rr:.`'�`r
Tpt-s
Iz F.rte';ti
.�nr' Z-vvs -i{ �a ww Ea7 r
h"F . ".c ap 0yjW Y
Own IL ION tow / dmwwmi Werr