Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wayfinding And Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs options for directing deliveries to 11 Williams Court; DPW says sign is private matter
Summary
Commission heard a petition about delivery and emergency access to 11 Williams Court, which is reached via a private easement through 9 Williams Court. DPW advised the commission that signage is a private matter and recommended the homeowner arrange a directional sign and property cleanup.
Commissioners heard from Commissioner Demambro (speaker 9) and others about access problems for a dwelling at 11 Williams Court that is reached by an easement through the property at 9 Williams Court. Demambro said an elderly, widowed resident at 11 Williams Court has experienced missed mail and deliveries because the access is not apparent from Williams Court.
Lindsay read a DPW email from Jada Rand that described the matter as private and recommended the homeowner obtain and place an appropriately located directional sign for delivery drivers, and that brush and overgrowth at the driveway entrance be cleared to improve visibility. The DPW email also advised that any sign should not be located in the public way, citing prior counsel guidance.
Commissioners discussed volunteer or “Good Samaritan” options for a directional sign, the risk that a small stake sign could be buried or damaged by snow-plow activity, and the practical difficulty of placing a post where it would survive winter plowing. Some commissioners suggested a strategically placed, professionally mounted signpost where permitted; others emphasized that the signpost might sit on private property and would require owner permission.
The commission initially moved to place the matter on file while the mover followed up with DPW director/superintendent to see what an outside volunteer or organization might be allowed to do. Commissioners also noted historical concerns that the lot at 11 Williams Court was built in 1910 and resold in 2008 and questioned whether the dwelling should have been permitted without clearer egress. No formal city-installed directional sign was ordered; the commission asked staff and the mover to pursue DPW guidance and report back.
The commission’s recorded action was to place the matter on file pending DPW follow-up and further discussion; subsequent remarks recorded follow-up outreach and site-history notes.
