| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Paul
Senior Member
158 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 8:00:44 PM
|
I believe the question regarding multiple streets was about Garden St and Fourth St where they meet.The question was does Garden St end where it meets Fourth St or does it continue past Fourth St.
I forget who answered for the City but the answer was Garden St ended where it met Fourth St.
If it continued past Fourth St then they would also be ending part of Garden St when they ended Fourth St.
I also remember them saying Fourth St extended beyond Garden St all the way to Rte. 16 and that surprised me.I always thought Fourth St ended where it met Garden St.
That could have had something to do with the towed cars the next day but I am not sure about that.
I don't think East Elm is discontinued.I believe the barriers were put up because of the work being done down there on the old City Yards. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 9:19:25 PM
|
| Do you know "who" put these barriers up? I was by there today and I dont see work being done, I see the barriers on E Elm though. Would permits need to be pulled to start work on the city yards....even clean-up work? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 9:17:22 PM
|
Since none of us, myself included, has been able to get to the bottom of what is going on down on East Elm Street, I thought that I would do a little research into the process of how one goes about getting a street temporarily closed. That information is found in the City Ordinances in Chapter 17, Streets and Sidewalks. A whole portion of that chapter is devoted to that topic. The information is contained in Article III. Use of Public Ways During Construction, Reconstruction of Buildings. The sections included in this article are Sections 17-81 thru 17-89 inclusive. A link to the entire chapter is provided below:
You must be logged in to see this link.
In my opinion, there are few main topics in this article that are probably important to us. First, a permit is required to close a street. The issuing and monitoring of the permit is the responsibility of the Board of Public Works. The permit does not need to be displayed anywhere. However, if a representative of the Public Works department or the Police department requests to see the permit, it must be made available. Lastly, there is a requirement that the barriers used to block the road have sufficient lighting attached to them that can be illuminated all night long.
If this indeed is a temporary closing, I don't see that Mr. Thibeault would have had any problem getting the required permit. The only problem that I see is that the barriers currently in place have no nighttime lighting attached to them. That has the potential to be a very bad thing. Let's hope that issue gets corrected no matter why the street is closed. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2008 : 09:05:52 AM
|
Thank you for that information. There is a brand new "dead end" sign on it. I was just there and in only a few minutes, cars were confused and tried to turn on East Elm St. I dont think it's blocked off for work being done.
The way those barriers are, the homes would not be protected. The windows are all out. Those barriers (blocks) are four across from the last home to the city yards. Also, those are the same barriers that were on fourth street and were moved to E. Elm St.
I have a "feeling" (I hope I'm wrong) that he may have been awarded part of East Elm Street. (If) that is the case, he should have paid more and that was not in Mayor Ragucci's Purchase & Sale. Someone privy to a purchase and sale really needs to take a look at it.
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 4:55:41 PM
|
| Can the city just change a street to a "dead end" without any hearings? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 5:40:33 PM
|
If a portion of the street was previously discontinued, you could argue that that portion should have been blocked off a long time ago and the dead-end sign is long overdue.
If the closed portion of East Elm Street has been discontinued, I think that it would still be a good idea to get some better lighting on the barriers, at least at the Vine Street end. That's just an accident waiting to happen.
Boy, it would be much easier if we didn't have to talk about this situation in hypotheticals all the time. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 8:55:57 PM
|
The other night, I was doing research in Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances to find out the information that I posted about the use of public ways during construction and reconstruction of buildings. While I was looking for this information, I came across some information that I had been trying to find for a long time, the procedure to be followed in order to discontinue a street. That information in portion of the City Ordinances entitled Streets and SideWalks; go figure! Even though the time for this information had passed, I read it anyways, just to satisfy my curiosity.
Before I discuss what I found, let's review the events surrounding the public hearing held to consider the discontinuation of Fourth Street at a joint convention of the City Council. The public hearing was held on Monday September 8. The notice for the public hearing was published in the Everett Independent on August 26 and September 3. I don't remember seeing it in the August 26 edition of the paper but I'll assume that it was there. I just happen to still have a copy of September 3 edition of the paper and the legal ad does indeed appear in it. At the public hearing, it was voted to refer the favorable recommendation of the planning board to a special meeting of the Common Council that immediately followed. The Common Council voted to accept the recommendation and referred the piece to that night's regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Aldermen for concurrence. The Board of Aldermen also approved the piece and the order passed. This chronology of events is important to keep in mind in light of the correct procedure to be followed in discontinuing a street.
Sections 17-3 and 17-4 of the City Ordinances explain the process that needs to be followed in order to discontinue a street in the City of Everett. The portions of these sections that I'd like to hone in on are subsections (b) and (c) of Section 17-4. Same--Hearing; action. These two subsections are reproduced below.
(b) Such notice shall be published for two (2) successive weeks in some newspaper published in the city, the last publication to be at least seven (7) days before such hearing, and such additional service thereof as may be prescribed by law.
(c) Such notice shall state the time and place appointed for such hearing. Following, the board of alderman shall act first upon the proposed resolve or order for the laying out, accepting, widening, altering, discontinuing or defining the lines of such street or way, and upon all questions relating thereto, and such resolve or order shall then be sent to the common council of the City Council for concurrent action.
I guess that after reading these two subsections of the city ordinances, I find myself very disappointed. I came out in favor of the discontinuance of Fourth Street before the planning board meeting. The only two qualifications that I placed on that on that endorsement was that none of the rights of the abutters were infringed upon and that the discontinuation was done properly. After all of the reassurances by the Mayor and the City Solicitor that the discontinuation was being done properly, it is disheartening to find out that this process was not done to the letter of the city's own laws.
One can certainly make an argument that the violations of the ordinances are very minor and that no one was hurt by these small variations in procedure. I've actually struggled with this issue myself. Should I just let sleeping dogs lie? Could the city get hurt if I post this information? Should I try to use this information to some advantage? It appears that Councilor Simonelli is still having a problem getting his Wood Waste meeting scheduled; could this information be used to give him some leverage? In the end, I decided that the best course of action would be to just post the information and let the chips fall where they may. My reasoning for this, in the end, was simple. As citizens of this city, we are expected to follow the laws that apply to us, even if we disagree with them. We should expected no less from our elected and appointed city officials. |
Edited by - tetris on 09/21/2008 8:58:55 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2008 : 10:24:05 PM
|
I am shocked and appalled by this. The blatant arrogance and the constant reassurance from the Mayor and the City Solicitor that this was being done correctly.
We, as taxpayers, rely on the solicitor, and it couldn't be more obvious that she was either pushed to do this, or she blatantly works for Carlo and doesn't give a damn. Why were they all cheering in the hallway when this was done...... in that unprofessional manner?
Did they think this was a joke?
Who is responsible for making sure ordinances are followed correctly? The solicitor should have known better.
As for coverage on this discontinuance, I saw a very small clip in Everett paper and I cant say for certain it was three weeks in a row. I did see the "Town Meeting" on boston.com. Someone needs to get their priorities straight.
I understand that it may not be a "major issue" but in fact....it is. This should not have gone to the common council that night. They tried to rush it through so no one could research and ask questions.
This is very disheartening and this is another reason there needs to be an open public hearing. East Elm Street is still an issue and as Tetris stated, is an accident waiting to happen. Thank you Tetris for taking the time and finding this out. The Mayor stated to Councilor Simonelli that "He wants him to set up a public hearing to do homework for him"...............It appears our Mayor and the legal team that is suppose to work for us, does not do their homework, or does not do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 2:33:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul
I believe the question regarding multiple streets was about Garden St and Fourth St where they meet.The question was does Garden St end where it meets Fourth St or does it continue past Fourth St.
I forget who answered for the City but the answer was Garden St ended where it met Fourth St.
If it continued past Fourth St then they would also be ending part of Garden St when they ended Fourth St.
I also remember them saying Fourth St extended beyond Garden St all the way to Rte. 16 and that surprised me.I always thought Fourth St ended where it met Garden St.
That could have had something to do with the towed cars the next day but I am not sure about that.
I don't think East Elm is discontinued.I believe the barriers were put up because of the work being done down there on the old City Yards.
FYI Paul,
I heard from a reliable source that East Elm Street indeed has been discontinued.
I'm not sure how that happened, or even if it happened legally (I don't recall any meetings on it) Some issues I have right now are...........He had the abutters towed without notice (that was just mean, and NOT being a good neighbor) Those barriers are RIGHT UP to the last house on the street and that street has now become a dead end. That's going to be a mess in the winter. As Tetris stated, that is an accident waiting to happen, he is NOT following the ordinance with the proper lighting. All he did was move those blocks from fourth street to East Elm St.
This is hurting the businesses there too and they said they will come back and sue if the abutters get hurt at all. They were tricked into thinking it was "only" fourth street but in fact, he did get most of East Elm too.
These issues along with the findings from Tetris truly sicken me.
The "main" issue right now is the fact this discontinuance was not done correctly AGAIN and this situation needs to be rectified. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 3:33:26 PM
|
I wonder if anyone could bring this issue up at the meeting tonight.
I am with Tetris on this. I, too, was in favor of the discontinuance of Fourth Street. The Administration had told us that it was being done right this time. If we are reading the ordinance properly, procedure wasn't followed, yet once again.
Does this leave the door open for the abutters to take some type of legal action against the city?
|
Edited by - massdee on 09/22/2008 4:31:59 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 11:59:21 AM
|
Published: September 20, 2008
NEWBURYPORT — Motivated by the recent spike in the number of abutter complaints about the odor coming from the Crow Lane landfill, including at least three more just on Thursday, Mayor John Moak said he has asked the city's attorney to meet with the landfill operator's legal counsel on a new agreement.
The goal is to bring another agreement to the City Council for approval and bring relief to neighbors in the Crow Lane area, who have suffered from odors for years.
The mayor said this week he thinks it would be in the best interest of the city to try to bring a proposal before the council. Ideally, the city would be spending money to make sure the landfill is monitored properly, rather than in court, he said.
"I just want to see if we can come up with something so we can get back in the driver's seat and monitor this," Moak said.
In June, the council rejected a proposal from New Ventures, the owner of the landfill, to reopen the 2002 Host Community Agreement to allow for the dumping of more material at the site to bring it to a level where it could be closed by year's end. The decision came in an executive — or closed door — session, and councilors returned to a public meeting to announce the result of the vote.
Under that proposal, in exchange for bringing in more volume, New Ventures would have released the city from some potential pollution liability, since the state has declared Crow Lane a contaminated, or a "21E," site, meaning all parties contributing to that contamination — including the city when it owned the landfill— must share the cleanup costs.
Councilors said they rejected that plan because the deal did not have enough of a benefit to the city. They instructed the "mayor and city attorney to seek further compromise" regarding the 21E designation. With the landfill labeled as a contaminated site, the city could be liable for the site since it dumped there in the past.
Moak said he ordered attorney Mark Reich, of Kopelman and Paige, to begin the discussions Tuesday.
"He knows what the City Council didn't like," Moak said.
Unlike last time, any discussion will likely happen in an open meeting, since the negotiations have concluded.
In recent days, neighbors to the landfill have been complaining more about the odor of hydrogen sulfide coming from the site, saying it's caused headaches, sinus and throat irritation, chest congestion, and disrupted sleep.
For nearly a half decade, the Crow Lane landfill has caused problems for city and state officials while disrupting the lives of its neighbors as it emits noxious smells of burnt matches and rotten eggs, caused by rotting gypsum wallboard from construction materials dumped at the site.
Moak said yesterday when he sees an increase in the number of complaints coming through on his e-mail, he will take a trip to the landfill and the surrounding neighborhoods.
Last week, he made one such trip.
"It was pungent," he said.
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 12:29:50 PM
|
| Is it possible for Thibeault to petition the State to have the old city yard declared a "21E" and what would the liability be for the city? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 1:00:19 PM
|
Why not? That's the way he does business. He has been a black cloud in the city from day one. He shot off his foul mouth at the last administration when they just "suggested" that he buy's Ruth out of her easement. He said he'll get what he F-ing wants from the next administration, and here we are. And, it's just like he wants, WE, THE TAXPAYERS will be buying these companies out of their easements, not him.
Did you see his application for a permit in the paper to clean up East Elm Street, and the windows in the old city yards? He paid 150.00 for that kind of permit? That doesnt seem right. I thought the entire cleanup was in the millions. I remember Tony Rossi repeatedly stating that his client is not spending millions of dollars to clean up the city yards to put his waste piles there. Maybe they will apply for other permits, who knows, but that still does not seem right. It's under his guy "Ethan" as the contractor. |
|
|
|
Cam
Member
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 8:26:46 PM
|
| That Teeboo's MO.....next the city will be paying to decontaminate the old city yard. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 10:18:33 AM
|
This link to the Registry of Deeds should settle the issue of a portion of East Elm Street being discontinued and when it was done.
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Wood Waste
