Cheverly council candidates debate stormwater fixes, stop‑sign camera pilot and budget priorities at forum

At a packed Cheverly candidate forum, residents heard competing council candidates lay out priorities ranging from stormwater fixes to surveillance policy and fiscal stewardship.

Many candidates identified stormwater and watershed protection — including Quincy Run and Lower Beaver Dam Creek — as top environmental infrastructure priorities. ‘‘We got $500,000 so that we can do an actual erosion study and a water study right there’’ on Forest Road, said Council member Amy Jean Chung Fry, describing the funding meant to evaluate feasibility for a Route 50 sound wall and erosion controls. Multiple candidates urged renewed engagement with the town’s Green Infrastructure Committee, continued stream restoration, and better air‑quality monitoring in the industrial corridor surrounding Cheverly.

The forum spent significant time on a proposed stop‑sign camera pilot. Council members and candidates cited preliminary test results showing widespread noncompliance at selected intersections; one council member described an ‘‘84%’’ violation rate across pilot locations. Supporters framed cameras as a public‑safety tool that could reduce motorists running stop signs, while critics raised privacy and implementation concerns and urged strong town control of data and a resident advisory review. Nicole Bridal proposed that neighbors most affected should have to sign a petition before cameras are installed on their block.

On fiscal questions, candidates generally favored prioritizing core services and preserving the town’s rainy‑day fund rather than raising taxes. Several urged an ongoing budgeting conversation and more aggressive pursuit of outside grant funding. ‘‘We don’t want to dip into that too far because that does affect our credit rating,’’ said one candidate, echoing a common theme that the town should balance immediate cuts with long‑term fiscal health.

Other topics covered in the council portion included a quick yes/no poll on whether Town Code section 4‑10 (pet waste removal) needs revision — several candidates said they had not read the exact code language and would withhold a definitive yes/no until they did — and a conditional approach to permitting street access to the Hospital Hill development, with several candidates saying they would support access only if traffic‑calming and other resident protections were required.

The forum closed with candidates reiterating commitments to transparency and constituent communication — newsletters, hybrid meetings and clearer procedures for resident input were repeatedly named — and urged voters to make an informed choice on May 5.