Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT Linda L. Barich, Chairman; Dorothy Cook; Paul Scott; Arthur Wood. ALSO PRESENT: Ann Burbine, Planning Board Liaison

1. Chairman Linda Barich CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER at approximately 7:10 P.M. in the copy/coffee room of the Town Hall.

2. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES. Acceptance of minutes was tabled until next month’s meeting, as not enough members at this meeting were also present at the February meeting to accept the Minutes of that meeting.

3. REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE. Plans were submitted for an Accessory Dwelling Special Permit for 117 Captain Pierce Road. It was agreed that a memo would be sent to the Planning Board saying that the committee could see no problems with the application as presented, and to ensure that there is adequate onsite parking for the existing dwelling as well as the proposed accessory dwelling.

4. NEW PLANS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. The committee reviewed the plans submitted for the razing of the existing building and rebuilding of a new three bedroom dwelling at 51 Lighthouse Road, and all agreed to send a memo to the Planning Board saying: “the committee has reviewed the plans. Lighthouse Road is in the waterfront zone, with no parking permitted twelve months of the year. There have been concerns expressed to this committee regarding parking in the travel ways in this area, and we have been assured by the Scituate Police Department that the no parking rule will be strictly enforced. Therefore, please ensure that adequate offstreet parking will be provided at this address. Please have the applicant and architect provide a plot plan showing onsite parking, to ensure that it will be adequate.” Copies of the memo will also be sent to the applicant and the architect.

4. OLD BUSINESS. Regarding 52 Gannett Road, there was a discussion about the interpretation of the bylaw governing site distance at an intersection (Section 30210). Mr. Scott said that the hedge is probably somewhere within the layout line. Ms. Burbine and Ms. Cook also mentioned the telephone pole that is in the roadway, and that this should be moved back. Mr. Scott said that the intersection is very tight because of the way it’s laid out. Mr. Scott proposed a site visit with Mr. Wood to measure the layout line vs. the edge of the pavement. Ms. Barich said that to proceed, support of the Selectmen would be necessary; but Mr. Scott said that it is a Town bylaw and the SPD should enforce it. Ms. Burbine suggested contacting the homeowner to attempt an amicable solution. There was discussion of tripping the traffic light, and Mr. Scott said that sensors would have to be placed in the asphalt and that therefore this would not be an option. Ms. Burbine said that the Town could be sued for not enforcing the bylaw in the case of a serious accident. Mr. Scott suggested sending a letter to the homeowner saying that “the committee has been asked to look at the intersection in terms of the bylaw that provides for adequate site distance (quote bylaw). Representatives of the committee have marked out the area in accordance with the bylaw. Removal of the segment of hedge will provide for greater site distance and public safety. We request your cooperation in complying with the bylaw. If you need further assistance in defining the area affected by the bylaw, please contact Ms. Linda Barich, Chairman, Traffic Rules and Regulations Committee, and members of the committee will be happy to assist you. If you wish to discuss this matter, it will be on the agenda for the April 6, 2004 meeting. All were in agreement to send this letter following the site visit by Mr. Scott and Mr. Wood.

Regarding speed zone signage/Front Street, there was discussion regarding whether 25 mph is slow enough. Mr. Scott pointed out that current traffic regulations call for 20 mph; before reconstruction in 1989, signage on Front Street was for 20 mph. Mr. Wood said that it is a heavily pedestrian area, and 20 mph would be better than 25 mph. Mr. Scott suggested that he and Mr. Wood mark out placement of speed zone signs on Front Street, and that following this, the TRRC should send a memo to Mr. Agnew saying that Front Street is marked out for speed zone signs, and that the TRRC strongly recommends the enforcement of the 20 mph speed limit. Regarding Route 3A/123 intersection, a designated turn lane has been requested, but 3A is a state highway and there have been delays by the state. Regarding Beaver Dam Road and Clifton Road, Mr. Scott said that he is now not sure it is a good idea to create a no parking zone that requires executive action and the expenditure of funds to construct a guardrail, which will only be effective for a period of a couple of months in the year. There was discussion of using horses and finding a way to make them semipermanent, so that they do not have to be put up every time there is an activity on the field, and people do not move them to make parking space. Mr. Wood said that he just wants to find a way to prevent people from parking in that area to ensure unimpaired site distance. Ms. Burbine suggested sending a memo to Recreation to ask people not to park in the area in question. Mr. Scott suggested that he and Mr. Wood speak to Mr. Breen and Mr. Story to ask them to supply horses to the area in season. Regarding Crosswalk: Brook Street and Stockbridge Road, Mr. Scott has asked Mr. Breen to create this.

6. NEW BUSINESS. Regarding Oceanside Village, Ms. Burbine reiterated Mr. Limbacher’s comments of February 2 that the Traffic Study submitted is insufficient and that a number of other sites must be surveyed. Ms. Burbine recalled a situation where Cushing Hall was for sale in the mid 1980s and one of the major issues against putting low and mid income housing there was that Tilden Road could not handle the volume of traffic that would be generated. This would still be a concern. Mr. Scott read the memo of December 4 from the TRRC to the ZBA regarding the scope of study and recommendations of the TRRC. Ms. Barich suggested sending a memo to the ZBA saying “The Traffic Rules and Regulations Committee has reviewed the traffic study dated February 2, 2004 submitted by the developer for the above proposed development. In our memorandum to the ZBA of December 4, 2003, the TRRC had requested that the applicant’s traffic engineer provide an outline of the scope of study they propose to make to determine the traffic impact that this development as proposed would have on this community. The committee also said that the outline must be reviewed by us for its completeness and must be approved by the Traffic Rules and Regulations Committee before any major analysis is conducted by the applicant’s traffic engineer. Unfortunately, the traffic study as reviewed was conducted without any outline being first submitted to or approved by the Traffic Rules and Regulations Committee, and the traffic study is totally inadequate in its scope. Attached is a copy of our memo of December 4, 2003 with our recommendations. We still feel strongly that an outline of the scope of study should be submitted by the applicant’s traffic engineer to the committee for approval before any revisions are made to the existing traffic study.” All present were in agreement to send the memo.

Regarding 442 Clapp Road, Ms. Barich suggested sending a memo to Mr. Breen requesting the reinstallment of the 25 mph speed zone sign. Mr. Wood checked the records to ensure that this was indeed the speed designated for that area; he discovered that 20 mph is the correct speed limit. He and Mr. Scott said that the correct placement of the sign will be determined by measurement. It was agreed to send a memo to Mr. Breen “requesting installment of a speed zone sign on Clapp Road. Traffic regulations currently show what appears to be a 20 mph zone in the vicinity of 442 Clapp Road. We request that a sign be posted in accordance with the speed zone regulations for the Town to reflect the 20 mph speed limit in the area. Please contact Safety Officer Wood to locate the exact positioning of the sign.”

7. ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting of the TRRC will be on April 7, 2004. On a MOTION by Ms. Cook, SECONDED by Ms. Barich, the meeting was ADJOURNED at approximately 9:05 P.M.