ORDER-2017-11 : Petition of Lightower Fiber Networks to place (1) 4 inch PVC Communication Conduit (Schedule 40) and maintain a total of +/- 314 feet of conduit from Utility Pole #48 on Short St to the building located at 830 Main Street, Melrose, MA as shown on plan dated July 29, 2016

Transcript (~22 min @ 29:18)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 29:00 Speaker 2: the roll on the order as amended yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes president khan yes yes 11 years the order passes next item on our agenda for this evening

▶ 29:25 Speaker 1: is we have a public hearing scheduled for 8 0 5 p.m on order 2017-11 petition of light tower fiber network to place one four-inch pvc communication conduit and maintain a total of 314 feet of conduit from utility pole number 48 on short street to building located at 830 main street melrose as shown on plan dated july 29 2016. motion to open up the public public hearing

▶ 29:59 Speaker 1: alderman inferno moves to commence the public hearing the motion is seconded by alderman mctier margolis on the motion all those in favor aye anyone opposed motion passes sir could you identify yourself please bill conway axis engineering on behalf of light tower fiber networks petition for light tower to place one four inch pvc communication conduit and maintain a total plus or minus 314 feet from utility pole 48 on short street to the building located at 8 30 main street as shown on the plan that was submitted okay could you briefly describe what you're going to do what disruption they'll be to the public way or the public sidewalk how long the work would take and what if anything will be done to mitigate any traffic problems that might arise as a result of the performance of the work okay we'll be starting at utility pole 48 on short street going west to the intersection with main street and continuing south to the building at 8 30 maine we will be excavating in the public streets so we did submit a traffic management plan that should have been reviewed with the dpw as well traffic and we will revise or take whatever steps necessary to ensure public safety estimated time for this project would probably about three to

▶ 31:30 Speaker 1: four days okay great if you could step back so that we could see even though we don't see anybody else here in the chamber whether there's maybe somebody waiting outside who's dying to speak on this order is there anybody else who wishes to speak before we conclude the public hearing on this order it does not appear to be motion opposed public hearing second alderman forbes moves to conclude the public hearing the motion is seconded by alderman mortimer on the motion all those in favor all right anyone opposed motion passes the public hearing is is concluded as with our previous order the city engineer has submitted for your review and consideration a list of 11 potential conditions relative to the grant of location for the performance of this work i would also point out that the city engineer is in the audience this evening and would be available to entertain any questions that you might have relative to this order motion to include those conditions as part of the order mr president second alderman mortimer moves that we accept the conditions set forth in the memorandum as a con as conditions to the grant of location if we in fact pass the grant of location motions seconded by alderman forbes on discussion alderman

▶ 32:46 Robert A. Boisselle: voice L I have a problem with this location the utilities were notified two years ago about fixing anything underground at this point this particular stretch of the road has been having problems for two to three years very rough very dangerous very rocky and we just paved it this year and I was under the assumption once you pave a road there's a five-year moratorium or maybe four and a half years moratorium I'm digging up the area unless there was a much an emergency in that particular area busted water line gas lines and so forth I have no problems with that this is also a main artery between seven o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock in the morning East Wyoming to the The Fellsway is backed up with traffic. And looking at these plans, you're going to have a one-way at certain times on Main Street. And that's going to really cause a problem. Those times of construction, it's just unbearable at this point. I mean, especially when you're looking at, I get the emails from the T, that they're stuck in traffic in Melrose between 7 and 8 o'clock, even 8.30. bus 106 136 and 137 are delayed because of traffic in Melrose between 7 and 9 o'clock and having construction at that particular time period is just I don't think is acceptable at this point but I do have a point is that for cutting up a new road that we just put in and then just filling in that particular two-foot area unless they're going to go from curb to curve I have no problem with that, but from my understanding from what this looks like, they're only going to cover the trench area and I can tell you right now, once they go down Main Street and cut across Main Street, that whole area is going to be shredded in the coming winter with the plows going through it. None of these trenches hold up for a full year at this point. So at this point, unless something, this material changes, but I'm against this input unless it's a dire emergency for this particular building if they're only upgrading their internet network it's not worth it thank you thank you anyone

▶ 35:15 Speaker 1: else on discussion Alderman Wright to ask the city engineer to come forward if

▶ 35:23 Speaker 1: I'm all the right moves to suspend the rules to ask the city engineer to discuss this motion seconded by Alderman Inferno on the motion all those in favor

▶ 35:34 Francis X. Wright Jr.: all right you want to post motion passes good evening following up on alderman

▶ 35:45 Francis X. Wright Jr.: boys else question one was the owner of this property given notice to your knowledge of the paving plan and all the construction that's gone on that area up to the present almost and well when we start there I believe that the limits of

▶ 36:02 Speaker 2: work are just beyond where we where we stopped paving under the Lebanon Street

▶ 36:13 Speaker 2: project so none of this work will impact that I don't believe so we paved just beyond 802 Main Street and this is going in the direction of Short Street we certainly didn't pave up as far as Short Street I'm not sure where the exact limit is but on our review we felt that it was beyond the limits okay is will

▶ 36:29 Francis X. Wright Jr.: the contractor be required to pave curb the curb when this project is done we

▶ 36:36 Speaker 2: were not requiring that because we didn't believe anything would be within the limits of the new pavement we required just beyond the trench we're

▶ 36:47 Speaker 2: requiring a cutback of I believe a foot yeah foot beyond the outer lines on cross trenches and to the gutter line so just the portion of the road where the

▶ 37:00 Speaker 2: trench is from the gutter to a foot beyond which has been our standard with other utility companies when they've done work as well my memory isn't it

▶ 37:08 Francis X. Wright Jr.: could be faulty but I always thought we tried as a board if not to the administration to have contractors pave curb to curb I know Alderman Forbes predecessor was often vocal about that and I understand Alderman Boisselle point that's a heavily traveled section of roadway and I would support if Alderman Boisselle believes that that's what needs to be done down there as part his ward i'd be inclined to support him so um if you have any information you want to offer us as to why that isn't necessary i'd be more than willing to listen but uh my understanding is just

▶ 37:59 Speaker 2: that historically we've done that when either the road is very new or in very good condition or when a substantial portion of the road is being torn up such as a gas main and then services going in either direction across the road which is disrupting a large percentage of the roadway my understanding on past projects with other utility companies at least in the time I've been here is that we've been requiring from a foot out of from the trench towards the center line out to the gutter which in essence in depending on where a conduit is installed or where a pipe is installed it tends to repair about half of the road and my understanding is that that's not just something that's been happening since i started it was the past practice which is why i continued to

▶ 38:52 Francis X. Wright Jr.: recommend that well i'm going to tell you something as somebody who lives on a street that has been torn up and re-torn up because the gas line runs down one side of the street i think you're familiar with the street and that has been as i make good repaved by the gas company think the last time was probably about ten years ago it's not worth it it's not worth it because you end up with half your street not this far this far but if you got a street this wide doing from the middle to one curve and what you end up with is a road that doesn't wear evenly and you end up with a city that says well your street really doesn't need to be paved because it's not really breaking down when half of it is so considering that can happen on a less well-traveled street like florence street i'd really be concerned about a street like main street so um that said if i may mr president i'd like to know if either the city engineer or the contractor could identify who the client is who the applications materials indicate uh is requesting this conduit

▶ 40:17 Speaker 1: be laid for sure of the actual customer i'm just the engineer from light tower is uh having a baby this evening so i was last minute so i apologize i'm not sure who the customer is okay i can And if there is a question about paving curb to curb, I can certainly bring that up. And if that's a stipulation, it's a possibility that we could do that for you.

▶ 40:43 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay. Thank you.

▶ 40:44 Speaker 2: We were not given any indication as to who the client was.

▶ 40:48 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay. Thank you.

▶ 40:50 Speaker 1: Thank you. Alderman Lemon.

▶ 40:52 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also echo some of the concerns brought up by Alderman Boisselle, um particularly the hours that that this construction um as laid out here by the condition 7 30 to 8 to 3 30 um you know as someone who drives in this direction from the wakefield line to oak grove at 7 30 every morning it's already very difficult to get through this stretch of road particularly now that school is back in session so the way that it that it backs

▶ 41:28 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: up going in that direction, it's sometimes hard to get through that light anyway. And then if you're going to have pretty major construction going on on the other side of that light, I can see lots of issues with people stopped in the middle of the intersection and all sorts of problems with people coming from the Wakefield line down. In addition, you know, anybody who's driven through there at this hour knows the just numbers of children who are crossing the street at this hour trying to get to school. I can see that there are going to be closed sidewalks which are sidewalks they walk on to get to school and lots of additional traffic from the cars trying to get through so I really have a problem with this starting at 730 and I would strongly ask the city engineer to it does allow for further restrictions

▶ 42:19 Speaker 2: to restrict this to maybe 830 yeah we'd be happy to recommend that great I think

▶ 42:21 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: that would help with a lot of the issues not only with traffic but with safety of the kids trying to

▶ 42:27 Speaker 2: get to school at that hour and you think 8 30 is late enough i i do i mean to be honest with you

▶ 42:30 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: i'm i'm at work by then so i haven't driven through by that time but i think the kids are in school um you know i mean maybe we could make it nine o'clock that way commuters are safely on whichever train they're trying to get on or on their way to work um and and that will keep sort would have some of that disruption down that'd be great thank you very much

▶ 42:56 Speaker 1: thank you thank you mr. president I don't want to belabor many of the points

▶ 43:00 Michael P. Zwirko: that have already been made I do agree I think alderman lemmerman for her comments and amending the the hours I just I know that school starts a little bit later and a lot of foot traffic so appreciate any any movement there I just one question I had and you might not be able to answer this if if we increase or

▶ 43:26 Michael P. Zwirko: decrease rather than 90 minutes will that increase the time of the work you said it would be about three to four days I'm just wondering if we make that move longer we can give about six and a half hours as amended I mean pleases we can try working nighttime hours or even weekends if it's if it sees we've done that he's in a high traffic area or school for the safety will work with the city engineer the city hello whatever works for you and I'm wondering thank you for that I know that one of the businesses that the butts where a lot of this construction will occur is a funeral home and they tend to use a lot of on street parking and as well as they have their own ample amounts of parking there as well have we received any word from any of the abutters about this project and any impact there may be on their business I understand that the hours are likely going to be outside of a wake I'm certainly could impact a funeral I'm just concerned about any business disruption and I want to be mindful of our existing commercial properties as well so if there will be be work that's on Main Street and there will be spots that are taken up if there's any type of mitigating efforts that could be made to accommodate that business would be appreciated and I don't know if you have any ideas but looking at the plans itself it does look like it could encroach on that we could

▶ 44:55 Speaker 2: certainly require the applicant to reach out to the funeral home and confirm the dates prior to starting the work obviously it's hard to plan with a funeral home but you know at least they probably know a few days out what what

▶ 45:12 Speaker 1: their schedules there's all the questions I had thank you okay we have Alderman Mortimer Alderman MacMaster Margolis Alderman Forbes and Alderman Inferna and it appears it appears that we we aren't going to pass this order tonight but maybe I'm wrong Alderman Mortimer thank you very much

▶ 45:31 Peter D. Mortimer: mr. president how urgent is it that your client get this job done quickly would they be able to withstand a delay of a few weeks before we start this that's That should be fine, that should be all right. That would be all right. And I would like to ask, what's the difference in cost between paving just a trench the way this is laid out now and going curb to curb? How much more would that cost somebody to do that type of construction?

▶ 46:05 Speaker 1: Generally speaking, ballpark.

▶ 46:06 Speaker 2: It really depends on exactly where the trench is located. Do you have a plan? I'll help you bring it up. it it's really my recollection is that it's really right along the curb is it

▶ 46:29 Speaker 2: in the sidewalk okay yeah so it's right along the curb so saying that they would have to do curb to curb versus saying that they could just do from one foot beyond their trench to the gutter we're talking about you know maybe a four foot swath as opposed to a potentially 44 it's a large difference and what what

▶ 46:45 Peter D. Mortimer: What's paving for a square foot running these days?

▶ 46:50 Speaker 2: I can't tell you off the top of my head.

▶ 46:52 Peter D. Mortimer: All right, I know what it is for residential driveways, but I wondered, it's probably not as expensive or more. I mean, it's thicker, you use thicker than what people use in their residential driveways.

▶ 47:09 Speaker 2: We use thicker, and it's also, well I was going to say prevailing wages, but that's us. That's not, Light Tower wouldn't face that same issue. So our prices that we pay aren't even really comparable to what a private entity would pay.

▶ 47:19 Peter D. Mortimer: Right, but Lightow will be footing the bill, we won't be footing the bill, certainly not. No, no, no. They're going to foot the bill for this. And regarding the hours, you mentioned that night work would be acceptable. We would work with whatever recommendations or guidelines that you would set forth. Right. For hours. And while we've been sitting here, I'm sure all of the aldermen have been considering, school gets out at about 2.15 at the middle school and the high school. Then there's the evening commute, but we also don't want to do the highway process where they go from 7 at night till 2 or 3 in the morning because there are people who live in that area, it's a mixed use area. So I'm not sure what the best hours would be, of course you're going to be hiring police details. And we may need to have a police detail, even if construction isn't going on in the daytime. Even if the area is cordoned off, there may need to be a detail there, even when construction is not ongoing, just to make sure people get around the area, even if it's laying dormant during the commuter hours. So this project could go up. I know there are a lot of aldermen in queue. Your point that this probably will not get passed tonight is well taken, Mr. President. More of a suggestion than a point. Well, suggestion as you wish. So I would recommend to the Alderman, the list of Aldermen who were in queue before you called on me, that maybe we could expedite this matter and make a motion to keep it in committee for now. It seems to be all right with you. It seems to be all right with our city engineer. So perhaps we could just get to the bottom of some of these issues without having to go through an extensive amount of colloquies this evening. It seems like we've come to a point where we're not going to go much further with the information we have. Thank you, Mr. President. Alderman Forbes.

▶ 49:26 Speaker 6: I am not in queue, Mr. President.

▶ 49:28 Speaker 1: Alderman McAteer-Margolis.

▶ 49:30 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: I do have a question, so I am in queue. and it is is Alderman Mortimer making a motion or no I didn't hear him make a

▶ 49:38 Speaker 1: motion okay I'll make a motion that we retain this in committee I believe that

▶ 49:43 Monica C. Medeiros: motions out of order as he's already made a motion to accept the conditions

▶ 49:50 Peter D. Mortimer: which has been seconded but not voted on point of order mr. president that's a superseding motion to amend an order but an order to leave this in committee as a main motion and it takes precedence over the superseding motion so I would I respectfully disagree with Alderman Medeiros parliamentary analysis of my motion. Okay, well, it's not in committee, it's before the full board, so I think the appropriate motion would be to table it, if that's the wishes of the board. So moved, Mr. President. Alderman Mortimer is moving to lay this order on the table.

▶ 50:24 Speaker 1: Second. Motion is seconded by Alderman Forbes. motion to table in order is non-debatable and would end discussion if it was successful all those in favor of placing the order on the table indicate by saying aye anyone opposed it appears that the motion to lay the order on the table has been passed and perhaps these concerns and others that we haven't heard yet could be addressed before we discuss this order again Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you.