The Traffic Commission has apparently scheduled a meeting for 5:30 p.m. October 22 to consider a request to repeal the overnight parking ban. They haven't announced it yet because they're only required to announce it 48 hours prior to the meeting, but it's been scheduled for a few weeks now.
Well it's about time!! Than you for this information.
I know you're not the original Geezer because the torrential flood of illogic that you spew isn't anything he ever would.
Posted Oct 14, 2019 at 12:36 PM
The city of Melrose was recently notified that MassHousing, a state development agency, has issued a Project Eligibility Letter for a proposed development that would involve the construction of 36 homeownership units in six townhouse buildings with access to roads off of Swains Pond Avenue and Hillside Park.
By issuing the PEL, MassHousing has approved the project to move forward with applying for a comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
This approval follows many months of back and forth between the city and MassHousing in which we relayed our significant and unwavering concerns about the project in the hopes that a PEL would be denied. On Dec. 6, 2018, the developer, Swains Pond Development LLC, initially submitted an application to MassHousing asking for permission to construct 124 units in two multifamily buildings on the Swains Pond Avenue site. After significant pushback from my administration, the developer resubmitted an application for 44 townhouse units. MassHousing issued a Site Approval Application Notification to the city of Melrose on March 18, 2019, which was the first official notification from MassHousing and which set in motion the review process that has occurred over the past six months.
On March 28, MassHousing representatives visited the site as part of their review process. The city responded to MassHousing in writing on May 1 with their opposition to the project and also encouraged residents to submit their own comments. After they sent this communication, the developer’s attorney, Regnante Sterio LLP, responded in a letter to MassHousing on May 28. The city sent another follow-up letter to MassHousing on June 17.
After MassHousing raised a site control concern about whether the proposed new residents have a legal right to use Maple Terrace as a means of access and egress, the developer resubmitted their application again on Aug. 15, this time for a 36-unit development that removes the two townhouse buildings off Hillside Terrace. Given that the new proposal did not alleviate any of the city’s concerns, we instructed our 40B attorney to submit additional comments to MassHousing regarding other legal issues posed by the development. Much to their dismay and objection, MassHousing opted to issue the PEL and allow the project to move forward with the Comprehensive Permit process.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is the Permit Granting Authority for Comprehensive Permit Applications. The ZBA will hold public hearings on the proposed project after an application has been filed, which will include multiple opportunities for public comments on any aspect of the project. Notice of the public hearing will be provided through written notice mailed to abutters and legal notice in the local media and my administration will provide updates on the mayor’s blog and the city’s web site so all residents can participate in the public hearings and engage in the process. The city intends to push for changes that result in a project that complies with state and federal laws and regulations, genuinely adheres to sustainable development principles and addresses all of the local concerns they have raised and that have been echoed by the overwhelming number of residents who submitted comments to MassHousing.
All correspondence from the city of Melrose, MassHousing and Regnante Sterio LLP, as well as an updated application for the 36-unit project, is available to view on the city website at http://bit.ly/SwainsPondDevelopment.
Welcome to Somerville, Medford, Cambridge. The Melrose I knew and loved is disappearing each and every day. 😔
Sorry you feel that way, honestly Fossil, because it is indeed me. I happen to feel very strongly that the overnight parking ban is and always has been absolutely ridiculous, and indeed hope it is repealed.
Maybe I have changed since "the old days". I guess I just can't handle what's been going on lately, both locally and nationally.
However, "torrential flood" did strike a chord with me, and I assure you that that is over, entirely!
Gotcha. No problem. These are indeed trying times.
BTW, the "torrential flood" comment was directed at your doppleganger. I thought you had given up.
The pot-stirrer who started this whole thing is maybe the foremost troll in the entire city. No plan, just put to improve his personal situation.
Yup. Blocked him months ago.
What a miserable existence. Get a life, lardass.
Thankful this law will soon be gone. I have a four car driveway, I’m very lucky in that sense. I’ve never heard one actual good reason to keep the overnight ban.its a money grab and nothing more. Similar community’s to Melrose do not have this law and they are just fine. Imagine paying taxes in this overpriced city and then getting a ticket for parking on a street those taxes maintain! Haha it’s absurd. Good riddance Peking ban.
Agreed, this law is long overdue for change. Any argument for it can easily be counter argued. The only people that like the law are the "thats how we've always done it" people. To be fair, thats all they know, and don't want the change.
1. "Public safety vehicles need to navigate the roads throughout the night." While that is true, they do it during the MUCH busier daytime hours and everything is always fine. I've never heard of a fire engine, ambulance, or police cruiser getting stuck because of bad parking. And lets be real, if two idiots parking side by side and there is a real emergency, that fire truck isn't turning around folks, its going staighttttt aheadddd.
2. "It will affect the ascetics of our city." This is the most absurd one yet. NO IT WONT. News flash folks, there are much nicer and more affluent towns in the commonwealth that allow on street parking. This is laughable.
3. "The city will loss profit, almost 300k a year if we do this." Someone actually said this to me, couldn't believe it. We are ticketing tax paying residents who may have just one or two too many family members with extra vehicles. Its not their fault, they should be allowed to park on the street their taxes maintain. And if 300K a year is going to make or break your budget, you have much larger problems than the overnight parking ban.
I could go on and on, but you get the point, this law needs to be overturned. The city is growing at a rapid clip, and most of these people have vehicles. If anything we should be slowing down the new developments in the city, not worrying about an overnight parking "ban" that you can have yourself exempt from. Thats right, all you have to do is call the PD and they put you on a "list" and you can park on the street. So why even have a ban if you can just call the station, make up an excuse, and park on the street anyway!
Parking overnight should be allowed except for the winter months. On another note, some of the city council are pushing for mandatory trash barrels with a fine if not used. Really ?
The guy who made this request to the traffic commission is my hero. He has a worldview that far exceeds those of the third-generation Melrose Neanderthals in this town that continue to cling to the ridiculous notion that the parking ban somehow makes them better than their peers. It doesn’t. Anyone who’s lived anywhere else understands that. I hope he doesn’t give up and I hope he runs for mayor some day.
Mandatory trash barrels?? Really?
Sounds like something JRM might request, so they could have even more fun destroying EVERYONE'S trash containers!
As long as there are people who STILL think (laughably!) that we’re‘Winchester or Lynnfield’, we’ll always be unique. 😂
Wakefield got rid of its winter ban about two years ago. The police chief got tired of ticketing people when it was 50 degree out.
KLB just outlined that this all is happening due to a lawsuit that apparently settled. Unbelievable.
Just read her FB comments. This guy actually sued the Traffic Commission about this? Apparently there was a dispute over what the appropriate office was for petitioning for a change.
Okay, now someone tell me what's really going on here.
I know how this went down.
The guy asked the traffic commission to change the parking ban last year. The Traffic Commission tried to get him to withdraw the request because the city administration didn't like it. Dude refused, and the commission agreed to hold a special meeting in the fall last year. RVC then gave a super special expert opinion that said only the city council can change the overnight parking ban because there is no change the city council would have touched this with a 10-foot pole. The guy sued because the law clearly says only the traffic commission can change parking rules in the city. The city ended up settling before it got anywhere near a judge and even paid his court costs.
RVC give BS legal reasons all the time to effect policy change because he knows that nobody will challenge him. This guy challenged him and won. RVC needs to go.
Well, having lived here for a long time, what ticks Melrosians off about the year-round ban is that it's become more difficult than it used to be to deal with the police department. There used to be an informal system of calling ahead and alerting them to a parking need; now "permission" is only granted under more limited circumstance than was formerly the case (way back, you never needed to offer a reason or even car/plate info).
And the department has made a quite a show of ticketing in the first 15 minutes after 2AM for the past several months.
I think a proposal that would satisfy what most Melrosians would really like but is impractical to implement would be free street by street "permitting" for overnight parking from April 1 through Dec 1 - not citywide or neighborhood permits like Boston et cet.: residents will not warm to having strangers who are not neighbors or guests parking in front of their homes at night - there will be anxiety about potential crime, among other things. Remember, one way Boston-area folks say hello to strangers is "Who the f*** are you?". Simply eliminating the ban is not going to be seen as the right solution to the problem.
And all residents will still need to have enough parking on their own property for the winter months. The city will no longer be readily approving the paving of front yards for that purpose - creates too much runoff unless its done in a much more expensive way that encourages percolation of storm water on-site. (We pay for treating runoff: if you hate our water/sewer bills, you'd appreciate the city's attitude about paving yards for parking.)
He sued to protect the rights of all residents to make requests to the traffic commission, including those disliked by the mayor's office. It had nothing to do with a particular street.
"There used to be an informal system of calling ahead and alerting them to a parking need; now "permission" is only granted under more limited circumstance than was formerly the case (way back, you never needed to offer a reason or even car/plate info)."
Having lived in Melrose for 15 years we have always called the Police when we had out of town guests. and gave the vehicle description including make, color and plate info and have never been told I couldn't leave the car on the street. They usually ask that you call before 11 pm.
The parking ban should not be lifted, as emergency vehicles will not be able to get down the street.
Again, that’s an absurd ‘scare tactic’ argument, with no basis in fact/reality!
Okay. Then I'll give you my reason for opposing changing it. I like it the way it is now. I don't need any other reason than that.
Well, it’s changing, so get over it. And if it doesn’t change with this round of meetings it will eventually be lifted. Too many people getting unnecessarily ticketed. And to the guy whining about fire trucks not getting down the street, do fire engines get around just fine during the much busier daytime hours? Exactly, take your nonsensical scare tactics elsewhere.
"Okay", now your reason I accept, because I admire your honesty! If more people would just admit that, instead of coming up with these BS arguments, it would make a lot more sense.
The parking ban should not be lifted.
Seems like this guy had a few law suits. Google
Talk about a masochist. Guy didn’t even have the guts to make his case. Just let everyone else crap all over it and get unanimously voted down. Overwhelming opposition.
With all in favor on here gotta wonder if he’s just posting over and over again.
Well that's that. Now I have a question - in what alternate universe does an advisory board or commission have the authority or responsibility to set or change policy?
As it turned out, the Commission had no balls. Lousy decision, but that's the way It goes in Melrose. We just accept things and move on, saying whatareyagonnado. Hopefully the election will change that a bit!
That's your opinion. You don't like it because they didn't do what you wanted. I, on the other hand, as well as the vast majority of those in attendance, think they arrived at the correct decision.
Get over it.
Can't imagine any of the candidates for office next month would publicly embrace a repeal of the parking ban. Repeal won't address the real issues for most Melrosians, who would likely be up in arms if it were repealed. Tackling the issues with the parking ban is not a binary choice matter.
**** libtards trying give me the freedom to park where I want to.
“Okay”, of course that’s why I don’t like it, DUH! And of course anything other than stating facts is simply my opinion, which I am entitled to have.
As far as getting over it, it’s ancient history to me, and won’t affect my life one iota, until we discuss it again, or not, the next time.
This is how Smellrose makes it's $$$$. Parking tickets and not all downtown is the same amount of time. One part is 2 hour and the other side is 30 mins...watch the signs. I have 3 cars and this $ucks thanks to the realtors for not telling us this information.
That's been that way for years. It was a deliberate decision to allocate part of the parking for short-term use (to encourage more turnover), and others to longer-term use. No surprises except to anyone who never bothered to check the signs that have been there for years.