|
. . . to discuss the City’s curb cut policy and whether any changes should be made, discussion to include abutter notification, timing of related buildings permits, criteria for requiring related traffic studies, effect of change of building use on existing curb cuts and any other issues pertaining to curb cut policies and practices. |
August 15, 2006Committee Report #2 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND In City Council September 25, 2006
The Transportation, Traffic and Parking. Committee held a public meeting on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at five o’clock and thirty-five minutes P.M. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the City’s curb cut policy and whether any changes should be made, discussion to include abutter notification, timing of related buildings permits, criteria for requiring related traffic studies, effect of change of building use on existing curb cuts and any other issues pertaining to curb cut policies and practices. Present at the meeting were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee, Councillor Henrietta Davis, Deputy City Manager Richard Rossi, Deputy City Solicitor Nancy Glowa, Assistant to the City Manager Nancy Schlacter, Public Works Commissioner Lisa Peterson, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Sue Clippinger, Commissioner of Inspectional Services, Ranjit Singanayagam, Director of Zoning and Land Use Les Barber, Preservation Planner, Historical Commission, Sarah Burks and Deputy City Clerk Donna P. Lopez. Also present were Lawrence Adkins, 45 Hayes Street, Lois Jones, 9 Putnam Gardens #79, Kathy Podgers, 148 Pearl Street, Jay Wasserman, 34 Second Street and Barbara Broussard, 148 Third Street. Councillor Kelley opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He stated the meeting would be informal. Public comment would be for a period of five minutes per person. He stated that he wanted a curb cut definition and that he may want the City Council to consider changes to the curb cut policy. He requested the Deputy City Manager Rossi to make a presentation and answer questions. Deputy City Manager Rossi stated that the curb cut process begins at Inspectional Services where the application is filed and is checked for completeness and zoning compliance. Abutter forms are required. Abutters include front, back and two sides of the site for the curb cut. Across the street can be sort of diagonal. The curb cut application is sent to other city departments to be checked for various issues. The other city departments are Public Works, Historical and Traffic, Parking and Transportation. The Public Works Department forwards the application to the City Clerk for transmittal to the City Council. In the beginning of the process ISD sends a copy of the application to the City Clerk’s Office to begin the neighborhood approval process. Councillor Davis inquired if the abutters are the abutters to the property. Commissioner Singanayagam responded in the affirmative. Mr. Rossi stated that the City’s policy and procedures for curb cuts and the City’s procedure with respect to driveway cuts, openings and off-street parking spaces or facilities and the City’s Policy on application for driveway cuts, openings and off-street parking spaces or facilities was established in l996 (ATTACHMENT A). The Law Department was involved with the process. The City Council reviewed the policy and approved the procedure. He requested the Deputy City Solicitor to explain the issue of approval/disapproval of curb cuts. Ms. Glowa stated that the abutter form should be changed because “approval” is a misnomer on the form. The City Council is the only entity with the authority to approve curb cuts. Notification is a courtesy. The abutter approval was unclear stated Councillor Davis. Ms. Glowa stated that the form would be changed to clarify the fact that only the City Council has the power to approve or deny curb cuts. Councillor Davis asked by what criteria can the City Council deny a curb cut. Ms. Glowa responded that the established law provides that a property owner has the right of access to the abutting public way. If a property owner is denied access it could be deemed a taking by the court. The intention in the law regarding access to public ways did not mean curb cuts to provide off-street parking stated Councillor Davis, referring to a situation on Garfield Street. It is not an issue of access; it is an issue to have a driveway. Access means the ability to bring equipment to the property commented Ms. Glowa, a driveway and vehicular access. Councillor Kelley wanted a better definition of what constitutes “reasonable access” and “public interest”. Councillor Davis wanted access to be reasonable access. In the attachment dated February 1, 1996 the right of access is outlined. Councillor Kelley wanted to review specific cases and how the law applied to each case. Councillor Davis stated that the issue is about parking, not access. Councillor Kelley asked what is a curb cut. Ms. Glowa responded that curbs are cut to make an opening to the public way from private property. In response to a question by Councillor Kelley on non-conformity Ms. Glowa stated that the zoning act was enacted to bring property into conformance. Bringing property into conformance does not require approval of the City Council; it requires departmental approval only. So making a smaller curb cut that what currently exists simply brings it into greater conformity and the City Council has no jurisdiction, just City agencies. At six o’clock Councillor Kelley opened the meeting to public comment. Kathy Podgers wondered what constituted “reconstruction” and if perhaps there was a question of permitting here. She asked if curb cut records could be checked, especially for records of the previous owners of property. She asked why the approval of the Disabilities Commission is not sought. She has heard complaints about multi curb cuts on property. She questioned whether the curb cuts have to come into compliance with the Building Code for ADA compliance. She noted that “wavy” curb cuts and double driveways can have a disparate impact on elders and folks with disabilities. She wondered if anyone in the city checked to see if curb cuts were built in compliance. Jay Wasserman stated that he has been through the curb cut process. Curb cuts usually go to the City Council and he wondered why his had not. His application was disapproved by the Inspectional Services Commissioner. Lawrence Adkins spoke about access, wondering if that meant vehicles being next to a house or parking next to a house. Abutters can lose on street parking and have exhaust kicked into their houses. He spoke about the involvement in the process of abutters, residents and neighborhood associations. A correction to the applications form should be made to inform the applicant that requiring abutter approval is a courtesy as now abutters think a ‘no’ is going to stop a curb cut. Sometimes, he said, the neighborhood association cannot respond within the twenty-one day period. Barbara Broussard commented that some East Cambridge houses abut the curb and there is no frontage, which means that they will never have the right to a curb cut. No frontage could be a zoning violation and would not be approved, stated Ms. Glowa. A variance would be required. Councillor Davis noted that the question is if a house is already right next to the public way, how much more access to the public way does it need? She told of a situation where a curb cut was approved, but the car doors do not have enough room to open so they park halfway on the street. Is there a requirement to allow for car doors to open? Ms. Glowa stated that it is tough to answer such questions in the abstract. Criteria are zoning, size and width. If criteria are not met a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) is required. Mr. Barber stated that zoning regulations have lots of parking and driveway restrictions, such as set backs for driveways and parking spaces and where requirements are not met, variances would be required. Councillor Davis stated that abutting property should have protection that the driveway not be too close to the abutting property. Councillor Kelley asked if there is no front yard set back is a BZA needed. Mr. Barber stated that a parking space is required to be set back ten or fifteen feet. Sometimes the set back is modified. Councillor Kelley suggested modification to the neighborhood association notification, as 21 days may not be enough. Councillor Davis suggested that information be sent to the neighborhood association to explain what to do in the event that the association would not meet within the twenty-one day notice period. Mr. Rossi commented on the legal requirement to notify versus courtesy. He noted that the Council had looked at this before and suggested language indicating that the curb cut has to be on the neighborhood association agenda, but there is no legal requirement and perhaps neighborhood groups should have subcommittees. Councillor Davis wanted the process to include in the paper work the option that the neighborhood association has in the event that the association will not meet in the required twenty-one day period. Ms. Lopez noted that such information was currently in the packet. Mr. Rossi informed the committee that the City Council has to inform the staff of the language change. At this time Councillor Davis submitted the following motion: ORDERED: That the curb cut policy be changed to include that the abutter notice be sent to persons who live next door, to property owners of record and to neighborhood associations and that notice to neighborhood associations include an option for the neighborhood associations to follow in the event the association would not meet within the required time period; and be it further ORDERED: That the abutter forms be revised to reflect this change. The motion – Carried. Councillor Kelley questioned the appeal process if a curb cut were denied. Ms. Glowa stated that the appeal process is based on what department denied the curb cut. This is outlined in the procedures. At this time Councillor Kelley submitted the following motion: ORDERED: That the curb cut policy include the following information:
The motion – Carried. Councillor Kelley submitted the following motion: ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the following:
The motion – Carried. A discussion ensued about standards. Mr. Rossi stated that the 1996 decision was to be objective and that the established standards be met. Ms. Glowa stated that the City Council policy on curb cuts includes criteria for City Council review. The City Council retains authority on the approval process of city departments. The City Council has the authority to approve curb cuts. Councillor Davis commented about curb cuts that were regrettably approved by the City Council. Mr. Rossi stated that each city department presented to the City Council criteria and why it was required for curb cuts. Debate occurred to make the process objective then this process was promulgated. The City Council process is a good one. Councillor Kelley commented on a curb cut at Dunkin Donuts in North Cambridge. Ms. Glowa stated that the City Council has the authority to lay out or alter public ways. Councillor Kelley stated that the issue is to clarify alterations to a public way by the City Council. First there is no curb cut, then curb cut is installed and the traffic is routed. This should be included in the policy. Councillor Davis informed the committee that Dunkin Donuts gave up their right to cross the curb in a variety of places by lessening the width, but she understood that they had the right to route traffic across their property as they thought best as with Shell Station on Memorial Drive. In these circumstances, the property owner would determine where they wanted to put the curb cut. She asked whether the City Council approval would be required again for a curb cut after its former use had been abandoned. When are uses no long needed or grandfathered? Ms. Glowa stated that use is not tied to the property owner. The history of the property would need to be researched. Councillor Kelley asked if property owners wanted to reconfigure how travel goes in and out of property does the curb cut process apply. Mr. Barber stated that if a curb cut is moved or shifted the City Council has to approve. Ms. Glowa stated that the property owner does not need to file a curb cut application if they are lessening the curb cut. A property owner may relinquish their right to the curb cut to bring the property into conformance stated Ms. Glowa. Councillor Kelley stated access was denied to the property because of an obstruction. Now this site is a busy driveway. He contends that the petitioner should have applied to the City Council for a curb cut. Each case has to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis commented Ms. Glowa. Councillor Kelley spoke of the Hess site. A curb cut was granted before the building permit was issued. The building was completed and then was granted a variance. Councillor Davis stated that this was an optional cut; not a regular curb cut. Councillor Kelley questioned access to property where there was no access before, such as where a tree had been growing in the case of the Dunkin’ Donuts property. Ms. Glowa stated that she did not know if a tree growing stopped the right of entry at that point. Councillor Kelley asked when could a building permit be granted before a curb cut approval. Ms. Glowa responded that there is not always a request for a curb cut with building permits. The trigger is the need for a curb cut for parking. Sometimes curb cuts are not necessary. Councillor Kelley asked if the City Council had to approve curb cuts prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ms. Glowa responded that it depends on a variety of circumstances. Councillor Kelley asked if sidewalks needed to be in conformity with street trees. Mr. Rossi responded street trees are not required; they are encouraged. Councillor Kelley asked if curb cuts are allowed where parking spaces are being removed from the other side of the street. Ms. Clippinger stated that parking spaces are never, ever taken away from the other side of the street because of a curb cut. Ms. Clippinger qualified the ‘never, ever’ to be figurative. Councillor Kelley thanked all attendees. For the Committee, Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair |