1. Call to Order

Chairman Raymond Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M at the Town Hall Auditorium. Present at the meeting were Vice Chairman James Carter, Clerk Michael Sitar, Chief Tom Ryan, Will Lambert, George Donovan, Steve Deackoff, Doug Sears, Director of Community Development Steve Sadwick and Recording Secretary Dawn Cathcart. Chief Al Donovan was not present.

2. Approval of Minutes – 01/27/04

MOTION - Mr. Sitar made a motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2004 as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously voted 8-0.

3. Traffic Update – Transportation Engineering & Construction

Jim DeAngelo from TEC appeared for a traffic update on the impacts to Tewksbury roadways. Mr. DeAngelo stated that they have been working with Mills on the evaluation access and Land Use plans. The impact memorandum provided for a 700,000 GLA mall with two ice rinks. TEC has looked to MVPC to use their traffic regional model. They have contracted with VHB and MVPC to provide the land use portion of the traffic study. Mr. DeAngelo stated that he has met with Mr. Prentiss and Attorney Bobrowski to define what the study area should be. They have also met with Andover and Wilmington as well as Tewksbury to get background growth information. This study was submitted to the Town on Monday.

The intersections that were determined to be most impacted are East Street/Shawsheen Street, Shawsheen Street/Main Street, and South Street/Salem Street. The ITE trip generation rate was used and the most important key is the distribution path and level of service. The study looked at the discrete zone. This matched the original count. The summaries of level of services looks at 2004, 2008 (build and no build). The percentage of impact to East Street/Shawsheen Street is 23 trips in AM and 94 in the PM. This is a little different than the first estimate but the trips for the ice rinks are different from the mall trips. There will be more local trips due to the ice rinks. The level of service of operation doesn’t change from pre or post build. Mr. DeAngelo stated that the conclusions are similar to the previous report as long as the ramp is the only access. The intersection of East Street/Shawsheen Street needs to be improved prior to any development. They encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM), working with MVPC and Mass Highway, I-93 Interchange, Signals at Dascomb Road, 4 lanes on I93. This is the first step because State and Federal approvals are still required.

Mr. Sears asked what happens if the numbers are under estimated. Is there recourse for the Town? Mr. DeAngelo replied that they are working with Attorney Bobrowski to make sure that there are checks and balances to protect the Town. These numbers are based on ITE models. Mr. Sears asked if the models are for parking and traffic at a destination mall. Mr. DeAngelo stated that the trip generation rates were conservative and they were based on a 750,000 SF GLA mall. Every mall is a destination mall.

Mr. Sitar asked if other Mills mall fall within the ITE model numbers. Mr. DeAngelo stated that Mills doesn’t have a mall this small.

Mr. Sears stated that he didn’t doubt the numbers but Mills says that they are a different mall. Mr. DeAngelo stated that he could do a comparison of the smallest Mills project, but the most important thing is the front door access. The project has a parking equation of 4.8 spaces per 1,000 SF GLA.

MOTION - Mr. Sears made a motion to request that a traffic comparison be done between this mall and the smallest Mills mall. Mr. Donovan, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Carter, Mr. Sitar, and Mr. Shaw voting opposed and Mr. Sears, Mr. Deackoff and Chief Ryan voting in favor. The motion failed.

Mr. Sitar stated that this committee has enough information to forward this to Town Meeting.

Mr. Deackoff stated that he asked many months ago for a comparative analysis with a Mills project vs. the ITE model on how a Mills project correlates to the ITE model. Mr. Deackoff asked where the 94 trips in the PM peak comes from.

Kevin Dandrade of TEC joined the meeting.

Mr. Dandrade stated that they took the traffic for the mall and rink. The numbers in the parentheses is the number of trips for the ice rink alone the other is for the mall only. The net increase in trips is 7.8%. Mr. Deackoff stated that they were originally told there would only be 17 additional trips, now it will be 29 + 19. There are 96 trips one way and 95 the other way. Mr. Dandrade stated that MVPC study has said 3% of the traffic would head west on East Street towards Town. We estimated 6% to be more conservative. Mr. Deackoff asked what the PM peak is. Mr. Dandrade stated that the peak is anytime between 4:00 – 6:00 PM. Mr. Deackoff stated that the study was for 2004 and 2008. Mr. Deackoff stated that for the record he lives on East Street. In 2004, the number of trips was 1,065. In 2008 no build the number of trips is 1,210, which is an increase of 14%. Mr. Deackoff asked what the growth was based on. Mr. Dandrade stated that there is a 2% increase a year for potential development around the interchange. Mr. Deackoff asked if the 2008 no build includes a ramp. Mr. Dandrade replied that the no build means no interchange. The 2008 build includes the traffic with a ramp. Mr. Dandrade stated that they did receive numbers from VHB and even wit the other developments the numbers are very conservative. Mr. Deackoff stated that if the mall goes in by 2008, the number of trips on East Street will go from 1,065 to 1,304. Mr. Deackoff asked where the background trip come from. Mr. Dandrade stated that there would still be an increase in Residential or Business in Tewksbury or Billerica. The growth rate is based on historical data. Any development will generate traffic. Mr. Deackoff stated that this project will increase traffic by 25%. Mr. Dandrade stated that the mall will only increase traffic by 8%. Mr. Deackoff asked why Rt. 133 has been removed from the study. Mr. Dandrade stated that the impact would be less than 1%. They are currently verifying that information against MVPC. Mr. Deackoff asked what the Saturday peak would be in 2004 and 2008 because the traffic between 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM is crazy. Mr. Dandrade stated that they looked at peak retail use and peak traffic. On Shawsheen Street, the traffic during the peak PM was more than the Saturday peak. Mr. Deackoff stated that Rt. 38 was not looked at. Mr. Dandrade replied that was correct, the AM and PM peak were worst cases. Mr. Deackoff stated that if the worst case on a Saturday on Rt. 3 was now 500 cars, with a mall it would be 1,000. The traffic is consistently bad. Mr. Dandrade sated that he is not comfortable with saying that. Mr. Deackoff stated that you don’t have the data on Rt. 38. Mr. Dandrade stated that Saturday traffic wouldn’t be higher than the weekday PM peak. The PM peak is 22% higher than Saturday.

Mr. Sears stated that there would be an increase in traffic by 25% + 8% for the mall. Mr. Dandrade replied no, for the 2008 build scenario there would be an increase of traffic from the mall by 8%. There is 2% increase for normal increase.

MOTION - Mr. Donovan made a motion to file the report and forward to the Board of Selectmen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously voted 8-0.

4. Traffic Peer Review – Douglas Prentiss

Mr. Prentiss introduced himself and gave his credential. Mr. Prentiss stated that he received the TEC report on Monday. He has met with TEC and Mr. Sadwick to look at the impact to local streets. Mr. Prentiss stated that MEPA will require a detailed traffic study and there will be more intersections that require mitigation. The MEPA process will also require a 5 year build out. Mr. Prentiss stated that he agreed with that the four intersections pointed out will be the greatest impacted. The other intersections in town will be impacted also. The historical data has been looked at for Rt. 38. The numbers that TEC used were conservative. Mr. Prentiss stated that he has monitored malls in the past and the numbers usually pretty close to the ITE numbers. If comparison numbers are available he would review them. The tempo analysis was available for traffic ins and outs. The intersection of Shawsheen and East Street is most questionable, lights should be added. Mr. Deackoff stated that intersection is part in Andover. There are intersections not in the study that should be looked at. Mr. Prentiss stated that they will be looked at in the MEPA process. Mr. Prentiss stated that he will have a summary memo by the next meeting.

Mr. Deackoff asked that the summary be in a high level overview of impact and mitigation.

5. Community Opportunities Group Peer Review – Judy Barrett – Fiscal Impact, Economic Development Impact, Land Use Impact and Regional Impact

Judy Barrett appeared for the Fiscal, Economic Development, Land Use and Regional Impact. Ms. Barrett stated that she was Project Manager for the Tewksbury Master Plan. The Master Plan committee worked for over a year on that plan but did not look at the South Street area.

Ms. Barrett presented a power point presentation that dealt with Economic Impacts, Fiscal Impacts, Consistency with the Master Plan, Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses and the Opportunities for a more Advantageous Project. This scope looked at nine surrounding communities. They included Tewksbury, Lowell, Chelmsford, Billerica, Wilmington, North Reading, Middleton, North Andover and Andover. The regional profile was presented. The Economic Output from the Mills project was broken out into two phases, Construction and Post Construction. The Construction Phase included, $214,945,200 in Costs, $83,661,840 Wages, Jobs 2,003, Indirect Jobs 2,284, Indirect Wages $107,137,353, Total Phase Output $467,470,294. These numbers are based on output multipliers. The Post-Construction Phase included, Annual Sales $246,250,000, Retail Wages $24,780,475, Retail Jobs 1,203, Indirect Jobs 619, Total Annual Output $512,667,875. Again these numbers are based on output multipliers.

Ms. Barrett stated that there will be positive and negative impacts with any project. The mall will increase the retail sales in Tewksbury by 38%. The data set used is based on 1997 data. The issues with this project is that the permanent jobs are lower wage employment, not living wage employment. The retail sales could be lowered in other surrounding communities. Ms. Barrett also stated that historically, when there is a rate of decline in the economy, the communities with malls had a steeper decline than the state average, but they did recover. The policy needs to be set for retail establishments.

Ms. Barrett stated that the fiscal impact is cost in relation to revenue with existing conditions. Tewksbury spends approximately $62,672,561 to serve residential, $5,525,576 to serve commercial-industrial and $794,192 to serve open space. The residential cost to revenue ratio is 1.29, the commercial cost to revenue ratio is .31 and the open space cost to revenue is .56. The costs of servicing an existing single family are 1.31 per every dollar, a new single family is 1.45, a multi-family condo is .89, a multi family rental is 1.09, commercial retail is .35, commercial office is .23, industrial is .20 and warehouse is .59.

Ms. Barrett stated that the fiscal impact of the mall are as follows. The service costs excluding capital costs is estimated between $363,744 - $861,618. The property taxes and other “own source” revenue would be an estimated $2-$4 million. The cost to revenue ratio is estimated at .20 to .22 per dollar spent. The revenue surplus would be $1.6 to $3.1 Million assuming continuation of the split tax rate policy. Ms. Barrett stated that the debt service is not included and it is assumed that the applicant would pay for the capital cost improvements.

Ms. Barrett stated that regarding fiscal zoning the town needs to look at if the major objective is to raise revenue. The local expenditures have gone up faster than the local property values. Another question is how much land does Tewksbury plan to rezone for non-residential uses in order to reach/maintain revenue in excess of costs.

Ms. Barrett stated that another issue was consistency with the Master Plan. The Planning Board voted to amend the plan to include retail in this area but it does not appear to be consistent with other objectives of the Master Plan. Ms. Barrett stated that she would work with Attorney Bobrowski and Mills to protect the wetlands and water resources. The Master Plan also focuses on a Town Center concept.

Ms. Barrett stated that her recommendations are as follows. The development for this area should incorporate mix of uses of residential and commercial. A village concept should be looked at. With a village concept there is a greater stability due to the mixed uses. There should be pedestrian access to this site. This should be a place where people want to work, live and shop. Surface parking should be reduced and the project should try to retain undisturbed open space.

Mr. Deackoff asked why work force housing was suggested. Ms. Barrett stated that this cuts down traffic and there is a need for affordable housing. Mr. Deackoff stated that the primary reason for people voting for this project is that there will not be a housing component. There is concern with low paying jobs and the increase of school age children. Mr. Deackoff asked where do the people who would work at the mall live now. Ms. Barrett stated that she did not do a simulation study which would have that information. She reviewed what the developer presented. Mr. Deackoff asked how the number of household on pg. 18 of your report was reached. Ms. Barrett stated that multipliers were used from a standard model. Mr. Deackoff asked if Ms. Barrett agreed with the numbers. Ms. Barrett stated that she agrees that they used the multipliers correctly. Ms. Barrett stated that the numbers on pg. 22 are also created using a multiplier with the numbers coming from Schedule A from the Town. Mr. Deackoff asked if a marginal cost analysis was done. Ms. Barrett replied no, an existing conditions analysis was done. The memos from the Fire Chief and Police Chief were factored in. Mr. Deackoff stated that the Wal-Mart and Home Depot get sales from residents. Ms. Barrett stated that is a development impact not fiscal.

Mr. Sears stated that he is concerned wit the small business and homes in Tewksbury. Ms. Barrett stated that the model is not designed to look at surrounding businesses. A simulation study is needed. The scope was to look at the multipliers and model. The simulation study takes time and there should be more concerned with businesses in other towns than Tewksbury. Ms. Barrett added that retailers in the mall will not be necessarily competing with local stores. In Kingston the downtown is the same as before the mall and competition is not always a bad thing.

Mr. Deackoff asked if the population increased in Kingston after the mall. Ms. Barrett replied no

Mr. Donovan asked what a non-living wage is. Ms. Barrett stated that it is a wage that is not enough to live with the cost of housing.

Mr. Shaw asked what the living wage is. Ms. Barrett stated that she didn’t know, but will get that number for him.

Mr. Sitar stated that most of the jobs in the mall will be supplemental jobs. Ms. Barrett stated that is probably true.

Mr. Shaw stated that the costs associated with residential could actually be lower because it is crossed with residential.

MOTION - Mr. Donovan made a motion to file and send the report to the Board of Selectmen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sears and unanimously voted 8-0.

6. Draft Zoning Article and Development Agreement – Mark Bobrowski

Attorney Mark Bobrowski appeared for the discussion on the zoning article and development agreement. Attorney Bobrowski passed out the latest development agreement. The first items are the Conservation Restriction and Restoration of Wetlands. Two emails were received from abutters that didn’t make it into this draft. He is still waiting on Mr. Manuel and Mr. Serwatka for more comments in this section. The next item is the Local Traffic Improvements. Mr. Shaw stated that the language should be included on what MEPA mitigation will require. Attorney Bobrowski stated that there could be conditions on MEPA or a Special Permit, but any known issues should be added to the agreement. The next issue is Acoustical Improvements. They are looking at the HVAC system, the ring road and the ramp. Attorney Bobrowski stated that they will use the numbers from the Police Chief and Fire Chief for the Police and Fire Department Improvements. The next item deals with Water Improvements. Attorney Bobrowski stated that they are working with CDM and based on the domestic and fire flow numbers a 6 Million gallon tank is needed. The applicant will contribute to the tank if the timeframes of the mall and the Town water improvement runs parallel. The next item was Sewer Improvements. The mall will create an additional cost of $273,000. Attorney Bobrowski stated that he will ask CDM to prepare a final report. Attorney Bobrowski stated that they still need the Landscape plans. Attorney Bobrowski stated that some elements of the Location of the Ring Road was that it was no closer than 600’ to any residential property and that all components including the parking remain inside the ring road. The next items is Access to Local Roads. Attorney Bobrowski stated that there will be no access to local roads except a gated emergency access. The next item is Use Limitations. Attorney Bobrowski stated that this item would prevent adult entertainment and a Chapter 40B development.

Mr. Deackoff asked if this was inconsistent with Smart Growth and sustainable development policy. Mrs. Barrett replied that was correct. Mr. Deackoff reiterated that Ms. Barrett stated that this is also inconsistent with the development policies of the Master Plan. Mr. Deackoff stated that Ms. Barrett has indicated that the Smart Growth is rapidly becoming State policy. Ms. Barrett stated that Smart Growth is used to determine grants and inter State policy. The next item is Reimbursement and Mills agrees with pay for all technical reviews. The next item is Consistency Required which means that Mills must hold to this development agreement. The next item is the Interim Period which Mills agrees not to do any work until it is ok with the Town. The next item is Intent of Bind Sucessors which means the agreement will run with the land. The next item is Ratification Amendment which means there will have to be a majority vote at Town Meeting. Attorney Bobrowski stated that he would need to find out who is the signature authority with Attorney Zaroulis.

Attorney Bobrowski stated that he will need to meet with the consultants to get the zoning bylaw and development agreement in final form.

Mr. Shaw asked if the applicant will pay for the cost of Town Meeting. Attorney Bobrowski stated that could be added. Mr. Shaw asked if the comments from the residents of Jennie’s Way are going to be incorporated. Attorney Bobrowski stated that they need to go through them first before they are incorporated.

Attorney Bobrowski stated that the draft zoning article is in process. Mr. Deackoff stated that at the last Zoning Bylaw subcommittee meeting it was decided that they did not want to see the article until it was finished. So per their decision the question arises if the Mills Bylaw Subcommittee should be disbanded. Mr. Shaw state that the intent was that the applicant will forward the final article and then follow the normal procedures for zoning articles. Attorney Bobrowski stated that they need to define the accessory structure definition and the maximum building size. Mr. Deackoff stated that we still need the landscaping, lighting plan and use chart. Attorney Bobrowski stated that they could have the draft zoning article ready for March 16, 2004 and work with the entire committee.

7. Meeting Schedule and Peer Review Status

Mr. Shaw stated that the next Mills Study Committee will be on March 16, 2004 at 7:00 PM.

8. Reports

Mr. Shaw stated that there are no reports

9. Public Input

Larry Knight of 16 David Street – Mr. Knight stated that regarding the parking the number they are using is 4.8 spaces per 1,000 SF. The typical commercial use has 5 spaces per 1,000 SF. This would be 160 fewer spaces so backups will occur. Mr. Prentiss stated that the ITE model is a national standard. There is only 8% coming from the local roads. There will be an initial spike when the mall first opens up but the ramp configuration should handle the amount of traffic. Mr. Knight stated that the AM peak will be an additional 23 trips and 98 in the PM peak. The mall will attract 38,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Knight asked where the additional 117 cars come from. Mr. Prentiss stated that the 8% distribution is over a 24 hour period.

Mr. DeAngelo stated it is not 38,000 trips but 24,000 trips per day which include diverted, link, and pass by trips, not just new trips. There will be approximately 22,000 new trips a day. Mr. Knight stated that people from other towns will cut through Tewksbury to get to the mall. Mr. Deackoff stated that 8% is 1600 new trips per day. Mr. Knight stated that if the economy downturns will the residential tax rate come up to cover for the mall. Ms. Barrett stated that tax rate for commercial has always gone up. Even if the commercial value goes down, the tax rate did not go down. Simulation models would need to be done to get the information. The tax rate is a political decision. Mr. Shaw stated that the town historically has kept the split tax rate. The Board of Selectmen can transfer more of the tax base onto commercial. Mr. Deackoff stated that in a recession the Board of Selectmen could shift the tax burden to Commercial but it wasn’t done in the last recession. Mr. Shaw replied that was correct. Ms. Barrett added that there was more residential development than commercial.

Mr. Knight stated that the other malls had additional resources for public safety. Ms. Barrett stated that she is not sure but the bulk of revenue goes to the schools. Mr. Knight stated that he did an internet search and he suspects that Chief Donovan’s request for personnel is not enough. Ms. Barrett stated she doesn’t have that information but she suspected there would be an increase of demand on the police and fire. Mr. Knight asked what impact the mall would have on the Town Center concept. Ms. Barrett stated that the mall would complicate things but not make them impossible. The local service is different from the services that the mall can provide. The risk is higher for Andover because it already has an established down town. Ms. Barrett added that we could get resources from Mills to help with the Town Center concept. Mr. Knight stated that there would be ten additional public safety officers at a cost of approximately $500,000 in salary. Mr. Knight asked what would happen 30 years out when those new ten people retire. Ms. Barrett stated that you need to look at how the town can sustain the additional revenue. Mr. Shaw stated that the State needs to get a 401K type retirement system.

Susan Duffy of 37 Catamount Road – Ms. Duffy stated that the previous memos have talked about 700,000 SF of GLA, now the models reflect 750,000 SF of GLA, but a memo she read indicates an 804,300 SF of GLA. Mr. DeAngelo stated that there is 750,000 SF of GLA and two rink surfaces. Ms. Duffy asked how big the rinks were. Mr. DeAngelo replied each rink is approximately 54,000 SF. Ms. Duffy asked how many trips would there be for the rinks. Mr. DeAngelo stated the analysis was done for the rink and supplied in the report given. Ms. Duffy asked when the committee received the traffic report. Mr. Sears replied yesterday. Ms. Duffy stated that she objects to the fact that the committee accepted this report without public input. Ms. Duffy stated that there should have been a comparison traffic study with another Mills project. Mr. Sitar stated that he asked if one was done, not that the applicant should do one. Ms. Duffy asked how the numbers are counted. Mr. Dandrade stated that there were field investigations done and they hired a vendor to do actual traffic counts. They also used historical data for East Street and Shawsheen Street from 2001. They compared this data with the ITE models. Ms. Duffy asked when the field counts were done. Mr. Dandrade replied it was done on February 12, 2004 and the historical data is from April 2001. Ms. Duffy asked if they were aware of the future development on Rt. 133. Mr. Dandrade replied this study took into account the area likely to be used as a traffic pattern. Mr. Dandrade stated that other developments will have to deal with the traffic mitigation as part of their development. They only looked at impacts to the mall. Ms. Duffy stated that she has hired a traffic consultant and asked if new information will be accepted. Mr. Shaw stated that they will always accept new information. The traffic consultant is working on a summary report. Ms. Duffy stated that she is concerned with the impact to local businesses, the increase in public safety calls and consistency with the Master Plan. Ms. Duffy stated that Ms. Barrett should give her presentation to the Board of Selectmen if not then the slides should be given to them.

Ms. Duffy asked who was doing the environmental survey. Mr. Sadwick replied the Beta Corp. Mr. Sadwick stated that the sound is also going to be addressed. Ms. Duffy asked when that report will be ready. Mr. Sadwick replied he didn’t know.

Donna Pelczar of 387 Trull Road – Ms. Pelczar stated that water and sewer capital costs and road improvements were not included. Ms. Barrett replied that was correct because the developer should pay for that. Ms. Pelczar asked if there was a cap on the capital cost number that the applicant will give. Attorney Bobrowski stated that will be in the development agreement and they are working on the final costs. Ms. Pelczar stated that the development agreement should have strong language to protect the wetlands. Attorney Bobrowski stated that the town has Bill Manuel who is a wetland specialist working on this issue. Ms. Pelczar stated that she wants to make sure there is a gate on the access road. Attorney Bobrowski stated that is already in the agreement.

Al Fishlin of 120 Jennie’s Way – Mr. Fishlin asked where the emergency access is. Attorney O’Neill stated that there are two options. If there is an opportunity to go through the Weens property then they will, if not they will use their right of way on Jennie’s Way. Mr. Fishlin stated if the Weens property is sold, there could be direct access to Rt. 93. Mr. Fishlin asked if there would be a complete traffic peer review. Mr. Prentiss stated that he only looked at the traffic on local streets and will come up with mitigation for the intersections.

Attorney Richard O’Neill – Attorney O’Neill stated that there are commitments from Mills and Perkins. There will be no access from South Street to Mills except for the gated emergency access. There will be an agreement with the Weens property for a gated road or there will be access through their right of way on Jennie’s Way. Mr. Deackoff stated that if there is no access on the Weens property then they will have to cross wetlands. Attorney O’Neill stated that if the Weens property is not available, then they will utilize their right of way. If there is no ramp then there is no mall. There will be no housing component. Attorney O’Neill stated that he was disappointed with Ms. Barrett’s presentation. There are present uses by right and proposed uses if rezoned. The issue is should the property be rezoned for commercial use or will it be left as residential. The Master Plan was amended to include commercial, office research, or resort uses if there is a ramp and residential if there is no ramp in this area. Community Opportunity Group gave a potential employment presentation for the MVPC in November 2003. Their report stated that this area could be an economic engine for potential growth. On December 16, 2003 the MVPC held a public hearing. At that meeting it was discussed that Wyeth has future expansion of 150,000 SF, Gillette will eventually double its size and AGFA will add an additional 300,000 SF in the future. There will be traffic problems and the interchange will improve traffic and creates jobs. Attorney O’Neill stated that if you look at the surrounding uses, there is a town dump, a piggery, I93 and Heavy Industrial in Wilmington and Andover. Attorney O’Neill stated that Mr. Sears wrote a letter when Jennie’s Way was being permitted. The owners of the property are not going to wait; they will use the land by right.

Mr. Deackoff asked why the railroad bed was not being considered for access. Mr. Sadwick stated that is private property. Mr. Deackoff stated that they should try to use the railroad bed. Ms. Duffy asked if the Weens property is sold would the agreement go with the property. Attorney O’Neill replied that the owners of the Weens property came in and agreed in principle to the access road is not a written agreement. The applicant has no interest in purchasing the property. The applicant has no right to the railroad bed and they have no interest in pursuing that. If the agreement is in place and the property is sold the agreement would run with the property. If the town takes the property by eminent domain then they would consider using it.

Mr. Knight reappeared and stated that if Wyeth, Gillette and AGFA are expanding then Office Research is the better use of this property.

Mr. Lambert stated that this committee is charged with studying the Mills project only.

Attorney O’Neill stated that if the parcel is not rezoned then there will not be a mall. If there is no interchange there will not be a mall. The property is zoned residential. The owner is not threatening the Town with a residential project but they don’t have the staying power to hold the land.

10. New Business

Mr. Shaw stated that there is no new business.

11. Old Business

12. Next Meeting

Mr. Shaw stated that the next meeting will be on March 16, 2004.

13. Adjournment

MOTION - Mr. Sitar made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Donovan and unanimously voted 8-0.

Approved:

Michael Sitar, Clerk