Permitting and Inspections assigned this issue to SCormier

Brush and visual barrier reduction as well as removal of that mound of earth on the NW corner is planned. Bike path intersections city-wide are to get some quick-term upgrades (there are more ambitious hopes for the future still in planning). There have been several public input opportunities with a planning consultant and city personnel.

Steve, what is the time certain for this work? About 40 people from our neighborhoods met with city about this two years ago, and nothing has been done, in fact it got worse. I too am assured that they are working on it, but this is the first I have heard there is a time certain. It would not be hard to clear the brush out NOW, and get a commitment from the utilities to clean that mess up.

Oh, you were talking about the NW corner. Yes, developer is taking care of that. I am talking about the opposite corner, the one in the photos.

Beats me about a time certain. I went to the first public-input forum, and couldn't attend the others. There's lots of detail in a powerpoint and other documents at http://www.btvbikepath.com/intersections.asp. Unfortunately they seem to be worried more about whether or not to replace the bikepath 'STOP' signs with 'YIELD' signs than about telling the cars to yield to pedestrians at the crossings.

DPW is meeting this week with Staniford Farm developer, who is very willing to do anything that can open up the sightlines and improve safety at that intersection. So at this time the city has an opportunity that will close in another few weeks. All the equipment they would need is there. The developer has cleared lots, and could clear the brush from SW corner of the bikepath intersection. Then when utilities bury the lines at Staniford Farm, they can also bury the spaghetti bowl of lines at the intersection and relocate the boxes. The developer wants to help, wants it to be safe and look attractive. We all do. Two years ago we talked, now we can see action.

How often does the City have an opportunity to work with and guide the efforts of a developer to address something that has needed attention for long time? At the very least, the brush removal should happen ASAP. Please don't miss the chance to bury the existing lines and relocate the boxes to improve the look and experience of this wonderful resource!

Can city utilities install poles and big metal boxes that clutter green space and block sightlines? The SW corner of Staniford and Island Line looks trashy. Does BED have to get permission from the DRB like residents do? Is trimming back brush by the Parks Dept and/or DPW at bikepath/road intersections discretionary? Are there setbacks for fences and ordinances that prevent building a solid fence that obscures sightlines at an intersection? What to do? Is the problem lack of code, lack of permit scrutiny, or lack of enforcement? Please educate us so we know where to go for solutions to this problem.

Graffitti on the utility boxes.

Graffiti on utility boxes.

More graffiti on utility boxes.

There are multiple questions raised and multiple departments will have involvement in a solution.

Generally all work done in the City Right of way falls under the direction of the Department of Public Works. That is the reason the issue was assigned there for evalution.

http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW/Street-and-Sidewalk-Operations/About-R-O-W--Services/

The secondary questions are related to fences which are explained in the link below from the Department of Planning and Zoning about set backs and Clear Sight Triangle guidelines.

http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/PZ/Zoning/Help-Guides/DG-Fences/

Because the area crosses the bike path the issue about overgrowth was forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Department today for additional evaluation.

The graffiti will be tracked under the second report made today in order to separate the issues by deparment as much as possible. That way the issues could be closed separately as they are resolved.

Code seems clear enough on the subject: WHAT IS THE REASON FOR REQUIRING A “CLEAR SIGHT TRIANGLE”? The clear site triangle is an area in relation to a corner lot or driveway where the height of fences are limited to no more than 3ft above the height of the curb. This requirement was put in place to ensure safety for pedestrians and road users from vehicles exiting a property and having clear visibility in both directions without a large fence in the way. By having lower fences in these areas, a small child riding along the sidewalk may be seen before its too late! The clear site triangle relates to all types of fences, whether or not they are ‘see-through

Parks is responsible for clearing the brush along the Island Line Trail, but this brush is in the city right of way (and the city right of way is on private property according to the property lines shown on the photo below. The road is also on private property!) DPW has responsibility for the brush and utility poles and boxes in the city right of way. Zoning is responsible for set backs and sight lines. Did zoning give permission for those utility boxes and poles that interfere with sightlines? Did Zoning also approve Appletree Point Lane being built on private property? There are a lot of violations on this little corner.

Multiple departments, city staff, and neighbors are collaborating on a fix. Meeting Monday. Will report the results.

What was the decision at the site meeting on Monday? Who will clear out the brush, and when?

Parks is currently supporting BED electrical line clearance along the Bike Path and public streets. They are scheduled to be finished in two weeks when they will begin to debrush intersections and other site view issues across the City. This location will be prioritized in that process and anything that can be done short term will be accomplished in the next few days.

Wow! this is great. Thank you! Will post on FPF to share with the neighborhood!

Brush cleared, thank you very much. Will it be on a regular maintenance schedule spring, summer, fall?
Update re: the huge utility box installed in the sightline on the Appletree Point Road curve approaching bike path intersection (see photo), we have received the following new information from Mary Sullivan at BED: "I did drive out to Appletree today to confirm that BED does not have equipment in this area. It is a common mistake many people make in thinking all of those boxes must be a BED box. I have attached a photo. We believe it belongs to Fairpoint."

Who granted permission for the installation of this utility box on a BED pole? Please confirm that it is a sightline violation.

Correction: It was Barbara Grimes who drove out to Appletree to confirm that the huge utility box does not belong to BED. Fairpoint has been notified, will find out if it is their box and who approved its placement in a sightline.

Fairpoint said they would send someone out to see if it is their utility box (even tho I sent two photos and street address). ??

1. Does BED or City grant permission to hang something on a pole, and

2. Does sight line requirement apply?

Who in what department has jurisdiction over utility poles and sight line requirements?

Graffiti still visible on utility box. If Fairpoint is responsible for removing it, please inform them that it has not been removed.

SCormier assigned this issue to BVT Graffiti Removal Program

Update: Fairpoint said "we have a permit from the city." I said, "Please move it out of concern for people's safety." Fairpoint says: the city will be assessing needs of the bike path, and location of utility box will be evaluated as part of that process. So we have sight line regulations for safety reasons, but this cable utility box has a permit to be located in public right of way, so it's grandfathered. Meanwhile every child/person approaching on the bike path from the south is at risk because the drivers sight line is blocked by a big Fairpoint utility box right at driver's eye level, and bike path users sight line is blocked also.

Thank you Parks staff for clearing brush.

All summer the area was kept open and clean. Thank you so much.

This issue is closed on behalf of the Parks Department.

Thanks for fixing this issue!