Select Board discusses comments regarding commercial vehicles

April 12, 2018 | Payton North
payton@thereminder.com

LONGMEADOW –  The Longmeadow Select Board hosted a meeting on April 2 where the group discussed the cell tower balloon test coming soon, resident comments regarding Article 28 on the upcoming Town Meeting Warrant and the Verizon Petitions regarding Dwight Road and Converse Street telephone poles.

During the announcements portion of the meeting Town Manager Stephen Crane told the Select Board that the balloon test for the cell tower planned for Bliss Court is going to take place on April 21 from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.  The balloon is designed to rise up into the sky at the exact elevation that the cell tower will be erected to show the structures potential visual impact.  Crane stated that though in the past when the town has completed balloon tests they haven’t heard from residents, he still wanted to let everyone know that the balloon test would be taking place.

In addition, Crane noted that on May 3 at 6 p.m. at the Greenwood Center there will be a moderator’s forum where residents are able to attend and discuss the upcoming Town Meeting warrant and gather more information.

At 7:10 p.m. the Board opened the Verizon petition for the moving of telephone poles on Dwight Road and Converse Street. Paul Davis was contracted by Verizon, and represented Verizon on their behalf.

Davis explained that the poles are being moved and relocated to accommodate the road-widening project on Dwight and Converse.  He shared that he spoke with the Town Engineer, Andrew Krar, who said he had “no issue with the locations of the proposed poles.”

He continued to explain that on Dwight Road the proposed location for the pole is if you are facing the pole, move eight feet to the right and then four feet back.

“Right now it’s pretty close to the edge of the road so it will be placed four feet behind the curb. It’ll be a more secure position than what it is now,” Davis said.

In regard to the Converse Street telephone pole Davis shared that the existing pole is in front of the new sidewalk and the guide wire goes down at an angle across the sidewalk, which is dangerous for pedestrians to walk under.   The pole is going to be moved on the other side of the sidewalk out of the way of pedestrian traffic, and moved ten feet back.

Vice Chair of the Select Board Mark Gold asserted he didn’t believe the Board had sufficient information to move forward with the approval of the pole moves.  Gold said he would be voting against this.

Davis rebutted, stating he spoke with Verizon, Eversource and the Town Engineer and all of the groups looked over the plans and did not have problems with it.  He continued by sharing that he spoke the week before with the Town Engineer and asked if there were any issues he should be made aware of before attending the Select Board meeting, and Krar stated he should “be perfectly fine.”

Select Board member Richard Foster interjected, adding that he did think that he and Gold had a couple of simple questions that couldn’t be answered and that he too didn’t feel they had sufficient information.

“I don’t think it’s going to affect the outcome, but it certainly effects the process. I feel as strongly as he [Gold] does that when we ask, we should be able to get an answer,” Foster said.

In the end, the telephone poles move was approved three to two, with Select Board members Marie Angelides, Clerk William Low and Chair Thomas Lachiusa voting in favor of it. With that said, Low stated, “In solidarity with these two guys [Gold and Foster] it’s the last one [petition] I’m going to approve without better information.”

During the resident comments section of the meeting, community member Andrew Fox came before the Select Board for the second meeting in a row.  He explained that he felt he received no response from the Board following his first appearance in regard to commercial vehicles parked in residential driveways.

“Tonight I wish to comment again on the misguided Town Meeting Article that attempts to remove a current bylaw that protects the quality of life in our town, and also on the failure of Building Commissioner Healy and Town Manager Crane to properly enforce many of the other bylaws as well,” Fox stated.

He then reacted back to a comment Crane allegedly made stating that Crane, “doesn’t get a lot of complaints but there are a few people who complain a lot,” to which Fox said, “Residents are forced to continue to complain due to the inaction of the proper authority…the problems continue due to the towns lame approach.”

Though the Select Board generally does not respond back to resident comments, Foster asked if he could ask Fox a couple of questions, to which Fox said he could.  Foster questioned what Fox wanted the town to do, “What do you propose the town does, tell them [commercial vehicle owners] to build a bigger garage to put their equipment in, or move out?”

Fox responded that the bylaws were created to “establish a quality of life that the people in this community wanted and so I don’t see how it’s one or two individual’s decisions to say, ‘oh, they’re outdated, we don’t want them anymore.’”

Foster reacted, stating that people by profession drive back and forth to their jobs in their commercial vehicles, and asked if the town should “evict” people from the community if they didn’t have a garage to put their vehicle in.  

Fox again stated that these are the bylaws the town has.

“I can’t imagine the answer is forcing everyone to build a garage,” Foster said.

Gold interjected and spoke to Fox’s comment regarding the town ‘not caring about bylaws. “One of the perceptions I have is that our bylaw enforcement is often by reaction and not by initiative. I think that’s what you may have heard as opposed to, ‘we don’t care about bylaws.’ We care about bylaws, but our bylaw enforcement is by reaction, if someone complains we react.”

Later on in the meeting during Town Manager Reports, Crane brought the conversation back to Fox’s concerns, explaining that bylaws are a gray area — not black and white.

“I think sometimes we start talking about bylaws and it takes on a binary flavor. ‘Enforce them all!’ ‘Don’t enforce any!’ You know, ‘This is what the bylaw says, this should be easy!’ Well, the reality is, it’s gray. Sometimes bylaws are subject to interpretation of the people in the enforcement role.”

He continued to explain that he felt Building Commissioner Paul Healy was doing his job, that Healy is in the enforcement role, and that Crane’s role in enforcement is quite limited.

“I think that the idea that we can bylaw our way out of humans not being good neighbors or humans having their homes or vehicles kept the way that we think they should is really an irrational thought,” Crane said. “I think maybe our bylaws need to be a little bit flexible and reflect the times that we’re in. Not every bylaw needs to be etched in stone for all time.”

Crane stated that they can’t make every individual happy, and that he does try to hear feedback from residents.

Lachiusa responded to Crane, “I think there’s a lot of folks in town that believe the town does a good job, I would like to say not a lot of people like to complain and sometimes you will only get one person on a street to stand up.  I don’t think the Board is feeling like you’re not doing your job or the people working for you aren’t doing a good job. It’s valuable to be aware of how it does affect individuals because most people won’t tell us.”

“I think criticism is part of the job and criticism helps us do better,” Angelides said.

The Board continued to discuss the comments and as the conversation wrapped up Lachiusa explained that he felt they couldn’t be defensive to individuals who bring forward their concerns to the Select Board.

“If every time we have a resident make comments and we defend the town, people think, why even go if we’re [the Board’s] going to be defensive. We generally hear the complaints and don’t defend them one way or the other,” he said.

On May 8 at 7 p.m. the Town of Longmeadow will host their Annual Town Meeting.  Warrant Article 28 specifically addresses the concerns of commercial vehicles.  The change that Article 28 suggests that commercial vehicles no larger in size than vehicles often driven for non-commercial use would be allowed to be parked in driveways overnight as long as the vehicle is registered to the address it is parked at.

To watch the April 2 meeting, go to Longmeadow Community TV’s YouTube page at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQsY3yGiZkI&t=2605s.

Share this: