Proposed parking limits on Visions Drive fails at town board meeting

— A new introductory local law to limit parking of vehicles on Visions Drive was defeated at the latest town board meeting after local residents spoke out against the action, although an amended proposal to limit certain parking on the roadway in question was floated and is being examined.

Introductory Local Law 2012-C, “A Law Amending the Town Code with Respect to the Parking of Vehicles on Town Roads,” specifically would have prohibited standing, stopping and parking along both sides of Visions Drive from Jordan Street to County Line Road. If passed, the law would have required the town to post “No parking” signs along the entire roadway.

The law was requested by Honeywell company as a safety issue due to its employees’ habit of parking on the roadway in winter in order to smoke in their cars. A letter from Honeywell to the town board earlier this year stated the company feared other cars or snow plows could collide with the smokers or their vehicles.

The board held a previously-scheduled public hearing on the proposed law at its Oct. 18 meeting, during which resident Roy Lootens objected to the law, stating that he never sees more than five or so cars parked on the road “for more than 15 minutes” at a time. He said the road is wide enough for cars to drive around any parked vehicles, and “I think it’s silly and would be a waste of the town’s money.”

Resident Julie Stenger, who also lives near Visions Drive, also said she did not “see a need” to limit parking there, and that the road is wide enough for cars to pass.

Town Councilor Nancy Murray said she agreed with Lootens. “I just don’t see a need for that,” she said.

The rest of the town board agreed with Murray, but, at the suggestion of Town Highway Superintendent Jim Card, discussed the possibility of prohibiting parking along a specific section of Visions Drive near the Honeywell plant. They tasked Card with measuring and photographing the specific road area in questions and reporting back to the board at its Nov. 1 meeting, at which time the board will reconsider the issue.

Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment