Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSiasconset Bluff Walk Public Access Meeting Notes - September 14, 2010_201402041425399795 SCONSET BLUFF WALK PUBLIC ACCESS SUBCOMMITTEE Draft Minutes Tuesday September 14, 2010 / 4:15PM @ 2 Fairgrounds Road Conference Room Members Present: Co-Chair Harvey Young, Rob Benchley, Joan Porter, Jeri Hicks, Bert Ryder Guest : Chief William Pittman Members of the Public Present: Carol Dunton,, Lee Saperstien I. Call to Order: Co-Chair Young called the meeting to order at 4:15 PM A quorum was present II. Approval of Minutes: Jeri Hicks moved approval of the minutes of August 10, 2010 as distributed and Joan Porter seconded. The vote was unanimous. III. Announcements: There were no announcements. IV. Development of a Management Plan for the Bluff Walk: Enforcement Chief Pittman of the Nantucket Police Department began his discussion with the Committee by relating the two issues which usually bring Police attention to the Bluff area. The first is after-hour parties of walkers along the Bluff. The second being parking complaints, sometimes involving tour operators. At this point Co-Chair Young explained our charge, and intent with abutters ways and Bluff Walk access to provide background for Chief Pittman. The Chief continued by discussing traffic-safety experience with parking issues and solutions in Sconset. His point was that one change meant to alleviate a specific problem creates a new issue in the related area. Co-Chair Young mentioned the possibility of Tour Operator/ Commercial exclusion vis-à-vis Board of Selectman licensing. Chief Pittman responded that Tour Operators tend to be licensed by the state and not the Town. This means there are fewer restrictions on the Operator. Further, the BOS would have no mechanism to control Operators. Mr. Benchley mentioned the desire of the Draft Management Plan compiled through meeting with Sconset residents and Bluff Walk abutters that commercial activity be prohibited, and that it was too bad to find out the Town lacked a mechanism to enforce this. Co-Chair Young questioned Chief Pittman on the issue of hours the Bluff Walk would be open to the public. The Chief responded that it may be prudent for the BOS to seek advice from Town Counsel on the issue of Public Access to Town property. He also pointed out two issues impacting a decision. The first is the ability to police with the proximity of homes to the path, privacy issues, and crime being the concern. The second being public safety on an irregular surfaced path without lighting. Chief Pittman then described the ways enforcement is typically achieved. One, by property owners or the public seeing a violation and calling the Police Department, and two, through regular patrol. Ms. Porter mentioned break-ins and the lack of a populace in the winter months. Chief Pittman responded that lately the Department has received more calls for premise checks. The solution for the Department has been to designate this area for patrol during “uncommitted time” of on-duty personnel. A discussion ensued with Co-Chair Young stating the desire is to have the path remain as a quiet, mellow walking path: a promenade. How would the terms prohibit, or discourage be incorporated in relation to such issues as jogging, bicycling, mopeds, Tour Operators and the like. There was mention of liability on granted easements, the response being the Town has the easement and is subject to a $2,500.00 liability limit. Chief Pittman reiterated that if the Management Plan addressed public-safety issues the Town may provide a mechanism for enforcement. Tour Operators may not be regulated; but perhaps such as the Ghost Walk operator may have a Performance Permit which is issued by the Town and could be regulated. Continuing, joggers and walkers for legal purposes the same thing. Member of the public, Lee Saperstein posed the question: how would the Police Department go about enforcing such a Management Plan as may be adopted? Chief Pittman responded that there is a Community Service Office who patrols the Sconset area and is there till dark and has enforcement powers. The Chief further mentioned next year there is the possibility of a Reserve Officer being hired if the budget allows. This Officer would wear the regular uniform and be armed versus the CSO who does not wear a regular uniform and is unarmed. Mr. Saperstein wondered whether these personnel would receive orientation for the specific issues regarding the Bluff Walk. The Chief responded orientation occurs at the beginning of each season and could be addressed at that time. Co-Chair Young mentioned deputizing and in addressing this question Chief Pittman related the Low Beach residents concerns with speeders. The residents were interested in funding policing of the road. Chief Pittman convinced them to allow him to place the radar display trailer on the road. Over a period of time only one infraction was recorded and that only a minor one. His point being that there is a very small return for the investment in deputizing. However; if there was still the desire to do so perhaps an entity such as the Sconset Civic Association could, at the price of perhaps $6,000.00 for the season fund a Reserve Officer. Chief Pittman concluded that if there was a desire to put teeth into enforcement privately owned land is easier to restrict than public. Or, perhaps as with the Beach Management Plan which is assigned to the Marine Department and has enforceable regulations adopted by the BOS, the Bluff Walk could be so regulated through Park and Recreation. Or, turn it over to the Land Bank or another entity which could dictate regulations and possess the legal mechanism to do so. The discussion by Committee members which followed made clear this wasn’t a particularly palatable solution and a less-is-more approach is more desirable. First make an attempt at signage which enumerates do’s and don’ts. The theory being once people are made aware of what type of behavior is expected of them there is a better chance of achieving better behavior. If there are not acceptable results with this course, then it may be time to pursue a situation including Park and Recreation providing more stringent enforcement. At the mention of signage the Historic District Committee came into play. Action Item- Invite James Grieder from the Sign Advisory Committee to discuss signage and the proper construction and presentation of such. Mr. Benchley mentioned the passage produced by the Sconset resident and Bluff abutters meeting as being a starting point for such signage. V. Updates: Concerning information gathering, Co-Chair Young informed the Committee that Frank Holdgate has produced a disc of compiled information. There is a folder for each property which includes photos of the property, as well as the stairs where applicable. In addition there are document for each lot. He stated the information was extensive and detailed. Mr. Ryder related the results of the Traffic Safety Committee meeting which he and Co-Chair Atherton attended. The main concerns raised were those of public safety, and parking. Fire Chief Mark McDougal wanted to be sure that any east/west ways which were opened to provide access to the Bluff Walk would be wide enough to accommodate Emergency Personnel and their equipment. Said equipment being no wider than the standard gurney or stretcher, and that it would not be necessary for a vehicle to drive down the access. The Traffic Safety Committee questioned whether it was the intention to provide any sort of parking specific for people wishing to walk the path. Co-Chair Atherton assured them there was no intention to include in the Bluff Walk Committee’s recommendation any parking of such nature. There was concern that Baxter Rd. is usually overwhelmed with parked cars and any new influx would be a stressor on the situation. Co-Chair Atherton stated it was hoped that the Bluff Walk would pose a low profile as far as parking was concerned. Mr. Benchley provided the Committee with the notes from the Sconset residents and abutters meeting on September 4, 2010. He stated that there is a Management Plan produced from a distillation of the meetings conducted through the summer. Further, he is in the process of producing electronically and hopes to have it available soon. Co-Chair Young suggested we accept it as a draft and winnow it as necessary. BOS Liaison Chadwick was not in attendance; however, Co-Chair Young believed the process of negotiations with the Anne’s Lane owners was progressing. VI. Next Steps Co-Chair Young stated that the Committee continues to progress with the Work Plan. Mr. Benchley asked the Committee for feedback about the tenor of the wording on the proposed signage which his sub-committee had produced (see document). The Committee concurred with the tenor and wording. There was one suggestion which was to include the word “quiet” to privacy. There was discussion of bike parking availability, with reference to North Gulley Rd., and preferentially Nosegay Ln. Further, there was discussion of the prohibition of pets and it was felt that was too restrictive. The consensus was for wording including leashes and cleaning up after pets instead. Again the HDC was referenced as the governing body to discuss signage and seek input. Ms. Hicks suggested we move concurrently with the Management Plan and signage. Co-Chair Young suggested as matters for the next meeting we should start to consider which ways we should recommend to the Town open, since we have already reached consensus on which ways to take. It was suggested we seek input from Ms. Bissinger of the Roads & ROW Committee as she is well versed in documentation and interpretation of individual lots. As well, Mr. Vorce of the Planning Committee was mentioned for input. The Committee concluded the logical first choices were between 65 and 67 Baxter as there seems to be open space between these lots presently. The other being Nosegay Ln. which is currently an unimproved road. Having concluded the agenda, the next meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2010/ 4:15 PM @ 2 Fairgrounds Rd. VII. Adjournment: Co-Chair Young adjourned the meeting at 5:50PM Respectfully submitted Bert Ryder Secretary Pro Tem ATTACHMENTS (2) Sconset ROW Committee notes from 9/4/2010 meeting DRAFT Sign Wording Sconset ROW Committee notes from 9/4/2010 meeting: 1) Keep the management plan as simple as possible 2) New sign at the head of footpath (see attached) 3) One turnstile between #27 and #29 Broadway, with a small “No Bikes Please” sign 4) Bike rack near the top of North Gulley Road (out of view from residents at #27 Broadway) 5) Exclude commercial tours (through licensing via the BOS) 6) Small “Exit” or “Return” sign at end of path at #67 Baxter and/or other outlets as determined by eventual takings 7) Maintenance by DPW; repairs in existing problem spots? 8) As little “heralding” as possible (Rev. 9/14/10) Rob Benchley Bob Felch Joan Porter Proposed sign wording (and tenor) for the Footpath ----------------------------------------------------------- Entrance to the ‘Sconset Footpath Established in 1892 by William J. Flagg “…used by the villagers and by farmers and fishermen… ...as a foot-path or foot promenade and for no other purpose or purposes whatsoever.” Please… Stay on the path and respect the privacy of our neighbors Park your bikes in the rack provided Leash and clean up after your pets Turn off your cell phones Walk, don’t run and Enjoy your view of the Atlantic