SCormier assigned this issue to SCormier

Issue Acknowledged - Assigned to Technical Services

The initial permit was issued on July 25th and expired on August 24th. The roof contractor was granted a one-week extension by the Director of Public Works. The extension was issued on August 25th and the permit expired on September 1. The traffic control plan was approved and inspected several times. The painting contractor required a separate obstruction permit, the sidewalk was closed off due to the work being done on the Roxy. Pedestrian traffic was diverted appropriately and according to standard, and the painting contractor’s traffic control plan was approved and inspected several times.

I appreciate your attempt to thoroughly document this. Please note that the obstruction was maintained for several days after the September 1st expiration. Have there been any consequences for this nonpermitted blockage? Also throughout the entire process the closure was haphazard with contradictory signage, signage left in the wrong location and signage which in an of itself constituted a hazard to pedestrians. Lets make sure we get this right so the people of Burlington can actually use their sidewalk safely.

Issue closed

I truly hope that DPW has used this episode to reinforce the need for safe and convenient pedestrian detours. This would have been an ideal project on which to require a safe temporary pedestrian route along the College Street facade. Public Works has the equipment and has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach on other projects. Shutting down a large section of downtown sidewalk for two months during the summer was a tremendous imposition on sidewalk users. Finally, it would be a simple matter for DPW to answer the question of whether the contractor was penalized for maintaining the blockage for 3 days after the permit expired. Could Public Works answer that question?