The city of Oneonta Common Council approves parking setback signs on Cherry and Chester streets with additional changes to parking restrictions at its Tuesday, Sept. 2 meeting.
The council approved a setback sign on the north side of Chester Street 46 feet west of Forest Avenue, on the north side of Cherry Street 30 feet west of Church Street and on Cherry Street’s south side, 35 feet west of Church Street.
Council members also approved the addition of a parking restriction on the north side of Cherry Street, allowing for parking from 6 p.m. Monday to 6 p.m. Tuesday only from the setback at Church Street to the setback at West Street under “Special parking restrictions, time limit parking and wintertime parking prohibitions.”
A parking restriction was removed for 15-minute parking on the north side of Cherry Street from 26 feet east of West Street to 93 feet east of West Street, specifically for 4 p.m. Monday to 4 p.m. Tuesday. Additionally, the council removed a restriction stating that 75 feet east of West Street to Church Street, vehicle parking is not permitted on Cherry Street’s south side 4 p.m. Monday to 4 p.m. Tuesday.
It removed a restriction for 15-minute parking on the south side of Cherry Street 45 feet east of West Street to 75 east of West Street, except 4 p.m. Monday to 4 p.m. Tuesday.
Another restriction the council voted to remove stated that parking is not allowed on the north side of Cherry Street from Church Street to a point 93 feet east of West Street, except from 4 p.m. Monday to 4 p.m Tuesday.
Other business
In other business, concerns regarding a runway obstruction clearance project at the Albert S. Nader Regional Airport were addressed again at the meeting. At a Wednesday, Aug. 20 Airport Commission meeting, several people gathered in the council chambers to ask questions and speak out against the project.
During the petitioners portion of Tuesday’s council meeting, Randy Miritello, who has spoken about the airport at many public meetings, said uncertainties about the project has taken a toll on his mental health. He added that neighbors have received letters from appraisers wanting to come onto their property.
“I don’t really sleep all that much anymore, and that has a lot to do with it. I lay awake at night waking up about this issue,” Miritello said. “That’s not how I want to spend my time.”
“I used to volunteer through my church trying to work behind the scenes to help with addiction issues, and I still do, but all of this energy that I have to spend coming to your meetings,” he continued. “I’m happy to be a part of (it), but this isn’t how I want to be a part of it.”
Toward the end of the meeting, Shannon McHugh, D-Third Ward, put forth a motion for the council to affirm its commitment to protecting natural resources in not pursuing eminent domain. She added that she would like to see Matt Kent, the airport manager, come before the council to answer questions.
Len Carson, R-Fifth Ward, said Kent’s information is provided to him by the engineer, Matt Nissen, representing Passero, the engineering firm the city hired.
“What was missing from the last Airport Commission meeting was our engineer,” Carson said. “From my perspective, I would rather see Matt Nissen here answering our questions. Then we would get it directly from the engineering firm who is representing the city of Oneonta on this project.”
McHugh said both Kent and Nissen should attend.
City Attorney David Merzig said McHugh’s motion did not require council action. Even if the council were to vote no, it would not change anything because certain environmental studies are required.
Michael Forster Rothbart, D-Seventh Ward, named some of the recommendations he had after attending the airport commission meeting, like having people who live outside of the city, in Milford and Laurens, on the commission and to clarify both a project timeline with the airport and the commission and where clear cutting and tree trimming is needed.
Cecelia Walsh-Russo, D-Second Ward, asked if it would even be possible for the council to say collectively that it is against eminent domain.
Merzig said it can say it does not like it philosophically, but “cannot vote against something it can’t vote against.”
“Whether you’re for it or against it, it is what it is, and until it is under consideration, it’s not under consideration,” Merzig said. “That’s the philosophical problem with the motion. Until there’s something to consider there’s nothing to consider.”
After some more discussion, McHugh withdrew the motion. In an unofficial vote, the council unanimously expressed reluctance to exercise eminent domain and were in favor of prioritizing environmental protections.