Between the brush and the lack of stop sign at the corner of High Popples and Mayflower (2 roads at a T with no traffic control) it is a traffic safety nightmare.

I think you mean at the corner where High Popples turns there is no stop sign. There is no T at the intersection of Mayflower and no traffic and very little traffic.

All of these are private ways. We typically do not cut brush back on private ways. Public roads are a priority.

We can certainly notify the abutters that the brush must be cut back to their property lines.

The Stop sign request would require an ordinance change, which can be initiated by your ward councilor Scott Memhard. He can be reached at 978-283-1955

Thank you for your concern, this issue has been received by our department. We will look into this issue further and resolve it accordingly.

Unfortunately 68 High Popples Road is owned by a developer who is converting it into a duplex and does no upkeep on the property.

I would think that as part of all of the rapid high density development that the city continues to approve in the neighborhood that as part of development planning process it would be standard procedure to review changes that might be needed in traffic management. Scott like Bill in the building department does not return messages on these type subjects.

When I complained about the construction noise at 9:15 on Sunday night, I messaged the Mayor and emailed 3 folks in the building department and copied Scott Memhard as well as Jim Destino. The Building Inspector was out there Monday morning..The traffic issue was brought up in the initial Conservation Commission meeting but we were told that wasn't under their purview. No idea whose wheelhouse that resides in at this point.

Public Works will work on resolving the brush issue with the abutters.

As far as the traffic concerns and such you may also reach out to any of these at large counciors

Or maybe the Traffic Commission:

Ingersoll Larry 978-281-2715
Bertolino Anthony 978-283-9386
Ryan Robert 978-283-7670
Mulcahey Michael 978-282-1419
Mitchell Michael 978-290-1491

Rose - the bush issue has still not been addressed. On 7/19 you stated it would be looked in to and addressed. The road is becoming impassible especially since there is no traffic control on the three intersecting streets and given severe overgrowth has become one lane only of two dead end roads. This is a liability to neighbors and needs to be addressed.

A second notice to 68 HIgh Popples and also to 2 LInks Road and 2 Mayflower, since they are all abutters to this intersection.

All three of these roads are private roads and it is the responsibility of the property owner to keep the vegetation cut back to the property line. As stated previously, we typically do not brush cut private ways - as public ways are a priority.

2 mayflower never received a notice, but have trimmed brush back. 2 links road has no brush on the road. this is solely a 68 High Popples Road issue and as no one lives there and it's undergoing construction by an out-of-town developer, this needs more action than a notice being sent.

Issue still not resolved

Rose - still nothing has been done. Also in 8/5 you stated all three roads are private. I believe you are in correct. Please check with Director Hale - he made a deal with all the neighbors that if they paved the road at their cost, the city would take over ownership. I believe even the signs have been changed. So at the very least you have jurisdictional control there. This issue was posted almost 2 months ago.

FYI... There is a 40 foot right of way for High Popples Rd in the area of concern that is defined by stone pillars at the corners of my property (2 Mayflower Ln) and those of the property in question. Because of the way the lots were created back in the '70s, the ownership of the land under the road was left in limbo. It is neither the property of land owners or the city. In fact, nobody knows who owns it! The person who subdivided the land is long gone and apparently has no successor. I went over all that with Mike Hale a couple of years ago. Homeowners along the street act like the land up to the pavement belongs to them, which is appropriate given the circumstances. It would be appropriate for the land owner at 68 High Popples to trim the bushes. It does represent a hazard.

BackShore, I am not incorrect. The roads are private. There was no "deal" made for the City to take over ownership. The work was done as “betterment paving” project. Please see City Code of Ordinances Section 21-80 Repair of Private Ways :(https://library.municode.com/ma/gloucester/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH21STSIOTPUPL_ARTIVREPRWA)

The neighbors can begin a process to petition the City to accept the ways as public but to date that has not happened.

Is the city able to cite 68 high popples road so they will trim their bushes? There was an accident on this corner years ago that left a child riding a bike with permanent disabilities. I don't want to see it happen again. This corner truly is an accident waiting to happen.

Mnemosyne - I don’t get the feeling that public works is going to do anything other then send a letter. It has been a couple of months now. Too easy to sit back and say not my problem. Look at this chain or responses - nothing could be less helpful to their tax paying constituents than this continued line of responses.

I'm not sure they are even sending a letter. I'm an abutter and have never gotten one. Yes, not helpful at all.

A quick check of this same city application shows that other brush clearing requests on private roads (as classified by the street listings found at https://gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5528 ) have been marked as completed as requested (some by the way that were submitted AFTER this original request was made. You previously stated that municipal owned roads and not private ways get precedence - but when undertaking private roads - what is the process Rose to determine priority (I would think it would be in order of request but by the data I reviewed that does not seem to be the case). Concerned citizens want to know the process - is it documented and publicly available?

Public ways are the responsibility of the Department of Public a Works. Private ways are not. The ways in this thread are all private ways. The paving of these ways did not change the legal ownership.

Brush requests listed as closed on other private ways may have been closed as a result of a letter being sent to the abutter or simple letting the constituent know where the responsibility resides via telephone.

All STOP intersections are product of local legislation. The City Council recently streamlined this process to allow the Traffic Commission to request new STOP signs.

Classic example of the problem: 68 developers GC this morning comes rolling around the corner from High Popples to Links and after I was at a complete stop at the corner and slowly moved forward into the intersection we almost had a car accident. There simply is no way to see if there’s any oncoming traffic from the stop sign unless you inch forward and if there’s a car right there well . . . Perhaps if they maintain their property this wouldn’t be an issue? Just saying.

As stated previously - public ways are the responsibility of the Department of Public a Works. Private ways are not.

We have notified the property owner via mail and am closing this issue.

Acknowledged - super helpful as always