The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30P.M. in the Town Hall auditorium with all members present.  Also present were Town Manager, David Cressman, and Recording Secretary, Charlene Dennehey.  Town Counsel, Charles Zaroulis, arrived at 8:10P.M.

 

The following scheduled agenda items were discussed this evening.

 

KAJ-Class II License – Change of  Name

The Chairman read aloud the public notice for the application from KAJ to change the name on their Class II License.  Appearing before the board was the petitioner, Dick Brucato, and his wife.   There were no questions from board members nor any public comments on this issue.

 

        Motion by Mr. Gill, seconded by Mr. Sears, to grant the petitioner’s request to change the name on their Class II License from KAJ Corporation d/b/a Brucato’s Auto Repair, to Tewksbury Auto Repair LLC.   Unanimous vote.

 

As the next scheduled agenda item is at 7:45P.M., the Chairman began the open agenda.

 

Residents

Seeing none, the Chairman continued to the Town Manager’s items.

 

Town Manager

Animal Control Officer Appointment

Mr. Cressman announced the appointment of Brian Fernald as Animal Control Officer.

 

Labor Counsel Invoice

        Motion by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Sears, to pay Labor Counsel invoice in the amount of $3,262.50.   Unanimous vote.

 

Town Counsel Invoice

        Motion by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Gill, to pay Town Counsel invoice in the amount of $10,338.75.   Unanimous vote.

 

Under discussion, Mr. Gill asked about a bill for California Products and a request to do something about their sewer fees.   Mr. Cressman stated that a request was made for the town to charge only for the amount of water that would go down the drain, i.e. through the sewer system, rather than the flow of water into the plant.   Mr. Gill stated that since we do not allow deduct meters, we should not have a deduct meter on an industrial complex either.  Mr. Cressman stated that there is no decision yet and it is an issue under study.

 

Education Fund/Scholarship Fund Committee

Based on Town Counsel’s January 6, 2004 opinion, Mr. Cressman recommended the Board create two committees that have the same membership on both committees and to post the 4 positions for filling by interested applicants with a 5^th position held by Dr. McGrath or her designee. 

 

        Motion by Mr. Ryan, to approve the Town Manager’s recommendation and also to incorporate any of the wording that is on page 2 of Attorney Zaroulis’ opinion which says, “…to establish the two separate committees and that we have one committee servicing both committees, the superintendent or a designee to serve on the committee, that all individuals serve and be residents of the town of Tewksbury and that the Treasurer and the Tax Collector design a place in the Tax Bill or Motor Excise Tax Bill or design a separate form to be mailed with the tax bill to accumulate the funds.”  Seconded by Mr. Gill.  Unanimous vote.

 

Deputy Police Chief

        Motion by Mr. Selissen, seconded by Mr. Sears, to allow the Town Manager to call for a Deputy Police Chief exam and appoint Tim Sheehan as the Acting Provisional Deputy Chief until the exam results are available.  Unanimous vote.

 

Dispatcher

        Motion by Mr. Gill, seconded by Mr. Sears, to authorize the Town Manager to post and fill the Dispatcher position from the Reserve Dispatcher list as there is a vacancy due to Mr. Godin’s resignation of his position and moving to a Police Officer position.  Unanimous vote.

 

Additional Item from Town Manager:  Massachusetts Municipal Association Conference -- Award

This weekend the Mass Municipal Association Conference, a gathering of Municipal officials throughout the state as well as the state and local insurance association, handed out awards.  Tewksbury finished in the top 5 out of 200+ communities in achieving the most points and criteria in terms of loss control prevention activities and was one of the top 5 communities with over $28,000 in dollar savings on our premiums for fiscal year 2004 and was one of 6 communities given the award which will be presented to the Chairman on Saturday.  We also attained a Loss Control grant we applied for of $2,500 for the purchase of a Scott Air Pack for the Water Treatment plant.  Mr. Cressman also sent special thanks to some key people who helped put the program together and some improvements towards achieving this award which are: through Town Counsel who provided several seminars for appointed and elected boards concerning how they should run their meetings and handle situations;  the Planning Board agreed to certain policies and procedures to reduce liability in terms of their area;  various department heads viewed films concerning employment hiring practices to reduce liability in that area;  and various departments in town had to issue certain policies that would govern how the town was operated so we would reduce our exposure to liability.   Mr. Coldwell added that for those efforts we also received a $28,000 rebate on our premiums and congratulated all those involved.

 

Executive Session

None

 

Approval of the Minutes of December 2, 2003 (regular and executive session)

Motion by Mr. Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill, to approve the Minutes of December 2, 2003 (regular and executive session).  Unanimous vote.

 

Reports:

a.             Board Members

         Mr. Gill:  (a).  Congratulated the Town Manager for a job well done having the town receive the award and rebate and recalled many years ago sitting at those awards dinners with this town not being mentioned – even had heard we were on the watch list for a couple of years.  A giant improvement in the town over a short period of time.  (b).   Wants information on the Tennessee Gas Pipeline as we had to hurry up and wait for a year and a half which turned into nothing except for concerned neighbors.  Mr. Cressman will ask them to give an update.

 

         Mr. Ryan:  Nothing tonight.

 

         Mr. Selissen:  (a).  Passed out materials he worked on with Mrs. Walsh and Jack Dunfey, of the Finance Committee, and referred to as “Sources and Uses of Funds for the Town”.  The members received copies and will return their comments to him later as he pointed out certain pages of interest, i.e. expenses were divided into fixed, semi-variable and variable and defined how those were determined;  salaries, retirement, and group health highest drivers.  The amount of revenue generated by proposition 2 ½ is substantially less than money generated by new growth.   Also of note is revenue generated from property taxes -- commercial versus residential -- down 2 full percentage points in the amount of revenue generated from commercial  and will use this as a starting point to do financial projections.  An ongoing effort is to take all this data and project forward on where we are going from a financial planning standpoint and wanted to make the board aware now.  (b).  February 4 at 7:00PM in the town hall is the water committee’s kickoff for the water review contract.  (c).  On the 26^th  at 7PM, is the next Sewer Advisory Committee meeting; hope to open the bids for Phase 7, Contract 22.

 

Chief Al Donovan, Safety Officer Brian Warren – Intersections Update

Mr. Coldwell announced this is an update on the intersections of South and Salem Streets.   Mr. Ryan noted that the report received tonight from the Chief of Police, Deputy Chief of Police, and the Safety Officer as well as from the group at the Police Department, is broken down with statistical data relative to the cost but also contains a memorandum relative to conversations they have had with people in that area and some traffic flows.  Relative to the memorandum, he asked that if we will be submitting to Mass Highway for almost $3 Million, how much of that is realistic on the Mass Highway part of the report.   Chief Donovan responded that they just gave an itemized list of what each would cost but are not their recommendations.  The memorandum addressed issues the board and citizens had concerns about and their cost effectiveness.  He received a letter today from Representative Miceli’s office saying that the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation is committed to include money in the transportation bill for the South Street and Salem Street intersections.   Regarding recommendations, there are a lot of mixed feelings with the group of residents in that area as some want traffic lights, some want alternative solutions.  The Chief was going to ask for time to do a reverse 911, have a meeting at the station, get everyone in and get a sense of what everyone wants to do down there.  He also felt we can do some of the lowest cost items, i.e. put reflective signs up, change the lenses -- make it more “seeable”-- as everything else is a major cost.  That intersection is a $290,000 estimate to put lights there which we are hoping will come from state funding if that’s the final decision of the board.  Also, Representative Miceli felt strongly it will be in the transportation bill this year.  Mr. Ryan stated that we should get moving to figure out if this is what we want or have another plan ready before requesting approval from the State and be sure of what we want as it could be more or less money. 

 

Chief Donovan concurred but wants a consensus from the neighborhood on what their main concerns are by meeting with all the residents involved to find the best solution with the least impact on the residents to improve the traffic situation.   Mr. Ryan feels it is too chaotic to bring 40-50 people together to discuss 35 different ideas and asked if we ever had an outside consultant perform a traffic flow study at that intersection or maybe we need outside experts to take a look from above to recommend the way it should happen and then go from there.  Officer Warren stated there were 3 traffic counts since 1991.   Chief Donovan was not aware of any traffic studies done, however, stop signs were put up which lasted for a day and a half and were removed due to so many accidents. 

 

The stop signs at Livingston and Kendall are up and for the most part the residents are happy;  still working on resolving the ownership of the land the tree is on.  Regarding the Town Engineer’s items for the Transportation Bond Bill, Mr. Gill is concerned about too many stop lights at intersections in a such a short space between them.   Chief Donovan stated that the probability of getting funding for them is slim to none as Representative Miceli has committed to Salem and South Streets more than any other and those other proposals are from the Town Engineer and not the Police Department.   Mr. Ryan asked about the one at Livingston and East Streets.   Mr. Cressman stated he just sent a letter to Representative Miceli on that and as for Chandler, he is awaiting the contract from the Auditor’s office, one issue to work out and then we should be able to proceed.   

 

         Mr. Selissen asked of the possibility of a “right turn only” on South Street in both directions or is it even feasible as the bulk of the accidents seem to occur with the traffic going through or making a left hand turn.  Chief Donovan replied that they could look at it; it comes with the lights and also, some conditions are the Little Peach and the school but we’re looking at it.  Mr. Sears added that it would also impact Hill Street and the Hill Street Annex which just moves the problem in other directions.  He asked Chief Donovan what is the next step in the process.   Chief Donovan would like to meet with this group and get their ideas, involve residents who have excellent suggestions but a wide variety.  The ultimate is to take the dip out of the road which would solve a lot of problems but is a costly solution.  Officer Warren stated that at Salem and South Streets, even if they get approved for the lights, we won’t see them for a minimum of 3 years with the engineering work.  He and Chief Donovan would like to put reflective signs into effect, better signage, new 12-inch diameter overhead lights instead of the old 8-inch for more visibility for people;  repaint the intersections for the crosswalks to define them better – make some huge improvements for under $2,500.  Mr. Gill concurred with Mr. Donovan’s recommendation to spend $2,500 now rather than wait to see what will happen.

 

         Mr. Coldwell quoted from the Town Engineer’s report citing existing conditions:  “…Salem and South Streets are local roads without signalized traffic lights, and a fire station and elementary school adjacent to the intersection….There have been numerous accidents at the site, one last year resulting in a MedFlight...”  That spells it all out, serious injuries necessitating MedFlight.   Mr. Ryan added that following a recommendation from the Chief, he wants to get together with him to frame out the items in the form of a memo as to specifically what will be done and to embellish it into a report ready for action and voting at the next meeting.   Chairman Coldwell spoke on behalf of the Board and thanked all involved for tonight’s report.

 

         Motion by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Selissen, to meet with Chief Donovan to frame the items in the form of a memo as to specifically what is going to be done and to embellish that into a report for action and implementation of what can take place in terms of under $2,500 and to see that go forward.  Unanimous vote.

 

Reports

(a).    Board Members, (continued)

         Mr. Sears:  (a).  Wondered if we know anyone who can fix the [broken] chair as it has been this way for years.  (b).   Rocco’s Access – an access issue coming up later in the meeting but asked Mr. Cressman if he could brief us on where we are on the Rocco’s clean up situation and  any thought given to how to clean it and how to get to the site to clean it up.  Mr. Cressman stated that we are very close to getting a signed Consent Order for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and a statement of work that is growing to a close -- will probably be done in the next month.  It will then take a year to two years to complete that process and as a result, that will determine which methodology they will use in order to close the dump and cap it.  Mr. Sears asked if the EPA had the authority to put a temporary access in if they want it in order to clean up the dump.  Mr. Cressman is not aware that the EPA has that authority and will research it further but the EPA in the past on this kind of issue uses the existing access point that is there.   Mr. Sears asked how do you get there and how do you get out of the dump.  Mr. Cressman stated that right now you have South Street and Bridge Street.  (c).  Mr. Sears wants to revisit the Vote to reconsider the taping of Selectmen’s meetings.  No second.  (d).  Mr. Sears made a Motion to allow the taping of Selectmen’s meetings that have been done by citizens from Channel 10 to be replayed on Channel 10.  No second.  (e).  Mr. Sears asked if any attempts have been made to make any guidelines so Mrs. Barbeau and Mr. Dermody will know how to decide what goes on Channel 10 or not – guidelines for their work.  A Motion to make that.  No second.  (f).  Mr. Sears had asked Mr. Cressman if he would check and find out if anyone else other than the Town Treasurer and Clerk knew that Form 441 -- sending [a portion of] the Perkins Property back for Tax Title – knew about that.   Mr. Cressman believes the Town Treasurer knew through following Massachusetts General Law in terms of the Return and Redemption of the tax title, and the Town Clerk knew from the certification that it was the signature of the Treasurer/Collector.  Mr. Sears’ concern is that this is certifying that this is the free act and deed of the town of Tewksbury and neither of these people shared this information with you, their boss.   Mr. Cressman stated that the Town Clerk does not report to him and is a separately elected office and the Treasurer Collector has followed Massachusetts General Law.   Mr. Sears stated when we have a major piece of property go back that’s being put into 1/3 of the projected mall development area, [why] it is not necessary for the Town Manager to know that is happening.  Mr. Cressman stated that if it has only been in there a very short period of time, he is generally not notified and not notified every time a large property goes into tax title and then somebody redeems it under Mass General Law.   Mr. Sears asked why the town in 1998 did not go with Perkins, as suggested by the superior court, to the land court to clarify any disputed titles and boundaries of the Perkins property.   Mr. Cressman stated he would appreciate it if discussing things based on an agreement worked out over 5 years ago, be put on as an agenda item and then we would all have it here in front of us to discuss it.  Further, he did not memorize a legal agreement struck 5 years ago word for word, but it was the responsibility of the Perkins family and the Town to take the issue to land court.  He thinks he knows who was the responsible party but does not want to be inaccurate.   Mr. Sears stated that this is the third meeting we’ve said this would be forthcoming from Counsel and we have now found that there are problems with at least one of those parcels and title.  When the superior court makes a suggestion, it would have been prudent for everybody involved at that particular time 5 years ago, that the boundaries and the titles had been clarified and the only place it can be done may be in land court -- a suggestion.

 

Tuk Tuk Thai – Liquor License Hearing

The Chairman read aloud the public notice on the application of TS Soul, Inc. d/b/a Tuk-Tuk, Fine Thai Cuisine by Sakda Sopchockchai, Manager, for permission to sell wine and malt beverages as common victualler on premises located at 1699 Shawsheen Street (Kerri Plaza) and described as Unit #2, front entrance, bar area and kitchen, seating on both sides of restaurant, two bathrooms.  The application includes a request for entertainment license for television only.

 

Mr. Sakda Sopchockchai, Manager, appeared before the members.  Mr. Coldwell stated that all the paperwork for this request for an alcoholic license seems to be in order and opened the meeting to board members if they had questions. 

 

         Mr. Gill noted that there was $500 in redecorating/remodeling, painting and Thai paintings.  Mr. Sopchockchai responded that in remodeling, they do all the painting inside and changed colors.    Mr. Sopchockchai also stated there is an existing counter bar for people to sit and wait for take out food and he has no plans to serve beer and wine there at this point.  Commuting from Dover, Mr. Sopchockchai will be there almost every day or his family -- brother and sister – will be trained and certified and will train everybody involved and get certified also.  Mr. Ryan noted that the applicant has complied with the 7 questions for information requested by Ms. Barbeau and feels everything is in order. 

         Mr. Selissen has a concern regarding the parking lot situation but not the restaurant itself as there will be two restaurants and a liquor store within a 100 feet of each other and it is a difficult parking lot to begin with.  Not sure what the requirements are but would like to see if someone can look into redesigning the parking lot or make recommendations along those lines.  Mr. Cressman stated that as it is existing, it would fall more in the Police area or sidewalk.  

         Mr. Coldwell asked Mr. Cressman to look into it and Mr. Selissen stated he would also.  The Chairman opened the meeting to the public, and seeing none, entertained a Motion.

 

         Motion by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Sears, to grant the application request of TS Soul, Inc. d/b/a Tuk-Tuk, Fine Thai Cuisine by Sakda Sopchockchai, Manager, license to sell wine and malt beverages as common victualler on premises located at 1699 Shawsheen Street (Kerri Plaza) subject to TIP certification.  Unanimous vote.

 

Reports

(a).    Board Members [continued]

         Mr. Sears:  Completed.

 

         Mr. Coldwell:  (a)  Glad to see Michelle Walsh in the audience regarding a communication she sent on a Home Rule Petition for conservation of the hospital land and other paperwork which arrived later on.  He distributed the communications to the members and read aloud from a letter with the following excerpts for action and clarification:  (1) “… on the activity and membership in the Land Use Committee which is a temporary committee…”   The committee has been inactive since the October 2002 Town Meeting awaiting the Home Rule legislation to follow the legislative process.   On its membership, Mrs. Walsh pointed out that both the ZBA and the Affordable Housing representatives are no longer members and we need to ask for representatives from each to allow for a meeting at the end of January.   (2).  The last item on the [Land Use Committee’s] Mission Statement is to preserve state land at Tewksbury Hospital.  The Town Manager along with the committee put forth an Article in town meeting to preserve some land at the Tewksbury Hospital.  Town Meeting passed it and it has gone into the State House for adoption as a piece of legislation; no action has taken place at this point, however, recent activity with our legislation warrants our Land Use Committee to discuss recent updates.   Mrs. Walsh intends to schedule a Land Use Committee meeting by the end of January to discuss the recent legislative activity. 

 

Mr. Coldwell requested Mrs. Walsh to provide more information on the “counter-legislation” so the townspeople can understand and know the efforts we need to take to support the preservation of the land.   Mrs. Walsh outlined an additional letter to the Board and the primary differences between the two:  (1)  We submitted a Conservation Restriction in our Home Rule Petition which, generally speaking, is stronger than an Article 97 which can be overturned with a 2/3 vote of the legislature.  The EPA and DPH have offered an Article 97 but they are strengthening Article 97 so it is not as easily overturned, which is encouraging.  (2) Another difference was that the DPH is offering a little over 600 acres to be protected under Article 97 – we had asked for a little over 400 acres so they are offering more acreage for protection.  They came about that figure after doing a Land Use Assessment which was provided to the Board.   Mrs. Walsh pointed out that at the onset of the Conservation Restriction we drafted, there was a great reluctance from the Department of Public Health and the Department of Environmental Management to endorse and grant a Conservation Restriction on land that had not been declared surplus and we were facing quite an uphill battle.  It is her opinion that this counter-legislation, although some tweaking needs to be done, is a great step and certainly meets our ultimate goal which is to protect those lands from development.

 

Mr. Sears asked if any of the 400 acres we voted to preserve at town meeting are not included in the 600 acres proposed.  Ms. Walsh stated there is some conflict between the parcels we identified as Conservation Restriction and one parcel in full that the DPH has identified as part of an expansion plan;  very small pieces of other parcels were identified as part of their expansion plan. 

 

Mr. Coldwell quoted from the last paragraph, “… a copy of the Draft Legislation is attached.  Senator Tucker’s Legislative Director recommends that the town move swiftly in responding to the DPA draft legislation stressing that every day that goes by, something could happen and the opportunity to preserve the land could be lost.”  To Mrs. Walsh,  as soon as you have and conclude your meeting and get back to us, we can send out a letter supporting your position.  I will reach the Zoning Board and the Housing Partnership to see if they can have somebody present so they can be part of the discussion.  If there is anything else we need to do, just let us know.  An important piece of legislation and we understand the work that went into it and the townspeople are interested in accomplishing what you set out to do.  He thanked Mrs. Walsh for making us all aware. 

 

Mr. Sears asked if she needed a vote from them on anything.   Mrs. Walsh responded that no, just wanted to make them aware as the committee had been inactive for so long; should have enough for a quorum if everyone shows up.  Meeting scheduled for next Wednesday, January 28 at 5:45PM at the Saunders Circle Community Room.  Mr. Coldwell added that anyone who wishes to attend to support the committee and their efforts, should also write both the State Representative and State Senator, and Board of Selectmen and Department of Public Health.

 

(b).    Town Counsel:  None.

(c.)    Secretary:  Use, reuse, recycle; post house numbers on your homes.

 

Committee Reports:  None.

 

Unfinished Business

Sewer Advisory Committee – Appointment to be Made

Mr. Selissen nominated Mr. Wilfred Lambert and Mr. Michael Mucci, seconded by Mr. Gill, for appointments to the Sewer Advisory Committee.  Unanimous vote.

 

Regarding the Conservation Commission, the Chairman stated that they did not discuss the issue of going from 7 members to 5 members at their last meeting and it is expected to go onto their agenda this coming meeting.  He recommended holding off until hearing from them at the next Board of Selectmen’s meeting.   Mr. Selissen requested inviting the Chairman of the Conservation Commission to come in and explain the reason why.   Mr. Coldwell stated we would invite the Chairman to the February 10, 2004 Board of Selectmen’s meeting for 8:30P.M.

 

New Business

Auctioneer’s License – To be Approved

Motion by Mr. Gill, seconded by Mr. Sears, to approve the request for Auctioneer’s License/Permit for Ronald Wackowski, 14 Sutherland Street, Andover, MA  01810 for the six dates listed on his application to be held at the Knights of Columbus Hall, Main Street, Tewksbury.  Unanimous vote.

 

As the regular agenda was completed and the next item is a continued public hearing, the Chairman called for a recess until 8:45P.M.

 

Northeast Cycles, Inc. – Continued Hearing

Chairman Coldwell requested Mr. Peter Pappas to come forward regarding the Hearing Continuance from January 6 to allow time for the cleanup of his establishment and noted a communication from the Building Commissioner which stated, “… per your request, I inspected the above referenced premises this date and find only 15 motorcycles on the premises, January 15, 2004.  Additionally, I must commend Mr. Pappas for cleaning up the interior of the bay and the area out back of his space.  Also be advised that this Bay, Northeast Cycle, was granted a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1983 to repair and sell motorcycles.  The original special permit had some restrictions attached, however, in 1985 these restrictions were removed.”  Continuing, the Chairman stated that the important thing from the report is that the Building Commissioner has found you acted in a proper way to clean up the situation.  He opened the meeting to Board Members.  Mr. Selissen requested that the lady from the January 6 meeting be allowed to speak. 

 

Lisa Higgins, 45 Highland Avenue:  Pulled on to Woburn Street to Highland Avenue and he had two motorcycles out there -- looked very nice and clean.  Drove down Woburn Street to the back and everything is gone and looks nice.  Happy to see it and hope it stays that way.

 

Mr. Selissen added, “sounds good to me.”  Mr. Ryan would like to see some type of report come back in about 90 days relative to the ongoing operation up there to see that it is in compliance with the license.  Mr. Sears is very pleased to hear this progress and concurs it would be nice for it to stay that way and for this gentleman to keep his motorcycle business going.  Mr. Gill concurs with Mr. Ryan, and if that’s in the form of a Motion, I second it.  Mr. Coldwell suggested to the board that we have 30, 60, and 90 day reports to see progress every 30 days for the next 3 months, particularly on and with no reflection on Mr. Pappas, the motorcycle issue – people probably aren’t driving as many motorcycles on the roads or up the street in this cold weather as they would when spring comes.  Would like to see something at that point.  We have asked for some surveillance up there by the police department to know what’s going on but I’d like to make sure it continues that way. 

 

Motion by Mr. Selissen, seconded by Mr. Sears, for 30-day reports on the Northeast Cycles, Inc. license compliance for the next 3 months and to continue the hearing for 90 days to Tuesday, April 27 at 7:30PM.  Unanimous vote.

 

Mr. Zaroulis asked Mr. Pappas if he would agree to this continuance.  The choice is that the hearing be continued for 90 days and we’ll have regular reports and if everything is all right, the matter will then be disposed of.  The alternative is that the Board would have to take a vote to revoke the license and then suspend the revocation for 90 days pending that report.  Mr. Pappas replied he didn’t mind the 90 days as long as his license is in place the next few days.  Messrs. Zaroulis and Coldwell stated the license remains in place and we’ll come back here in 90 days to dispose of the matter and weigh the outcome.

 

Mr. Pappas asked that the Building Inspector did say that the bay has permits for repair and that he can repair motorcycles.  Mr. Coldwell read from the communication again and recommended Mr. Pappas talk with Dick Colantuoni to clear up the matter.  Mr. Pappas wanted to ask the Board if he can repair motorcycles there.  Mr. Zaroulis responded that the Board should not take a position as to a Zoning matter.  Mr. Pappas asked about the fact that he can repair them, because there is a permit in place, and are you counting 3 bikes in for repair against the 15?  Mr. Coldwell reminded him that the board did not issue the permit and it should be cleared through the Building Commissioner and the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Mr. Pappas confirmed that you are saying I can only have 2 on display and 15 on service.   Mr. Coldwell stated his personal interpretation is that it is 15 total including 2 displayed and suggested Mr. Pappas ask the Building Commissioner and the ZBA.

 

Mr. Gill provided Mr. Pappas with a copy of the communication from the Building Commissioner.

 

Mills Study Committee – I-93 Interchange

Ray Shaw, Chairman of the Mills Study Committee introduced other members of the committee:  James Carter, Vice Chairman, and Mike Sitar, Member.  He also introduced for this discussion, Mr. Paul Hajec, the town’s Peer Review Traffic Consultant who prepared a report regarding the proposed interchange at that site.  Mr. Shaw reminded the board that on December 19, the Mills Study Committee received a letter from Mr. Cressman requesting their input on a letter that had been received by David Wahr on behalf of the Mills Corporation requesting that the board rescind their action regarding their opposition to an off ramp referred to commonly as the “Lowell Junction off ramp” in South Tewksbury.  After that letter had been referred to their committee, they had Mr. Hajec review the proposal by Mills and prepare a report for their committee.  He turned the microphone over to Mr. Hajec to share the results of that report.

 

Mr. Paul Hajec of Hajec Associates with an office in Lawrence, MA stated he shared his report with the [Mills Study] Committee last week and is in the process of preparing a final report which will be shared, explained, and discussed at next week’s committee meeting.  Basically, he was asked to look at two things:  (1) The different interchange proposals that have been put forward both by the Mills Corporation and in the report prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. [VHB] for the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, a total of 5 different interchange alternatives.  (2)  To evaluate the potential traffic impacts or review the impacts as presented by the Mills Corporation, of their particular project and come up with any mitigation of his own that he thought might be needed on local roadways above and beyond what might be proposed by the Mills Corporation or beyond what might be presented by construction of an interchange.  His findings are still preliminary in nature but reached a point where his professional judgment is that the “Loop Ramp” alternative, which is the alternative proposed by the Mills Corporation for that area and of the 5 interchange proposals evaluated, would work best from many different perspectives of all of the proposals put forward.  The things considered in preparing the final report are such issues as:  impacts on environmentally sensitive areas; impacts on local streets in terms of additional traffic taken, sent through, or removed from local streets by a particular interchange proposal;  the cost factor – the rough cost estimate for each proposal, is it financially feasible from an economic standpoint. 

Other things looked at by Mr. Hajec as traffic engineer are:  operational efficiency, feasibility, and stability in terms of capacity; calculations in the roadways that are being proposed, i.e. the roadways that are there and will be able to handle whatever traffic is there for whatever design year is being looked at.  Currently, the only design year looked at is the year 2025 and he suggested there should be an analysis done on something other than a 2025 design year.  He looked at safety factors and which proposal will provide the highest safety level with the least impact on safety on local roadways as well as on any new interchange construction and at ramp junctions.  In addition to evaluating the interchange proposals, he is separately looking at the project impact both with and without the interchanges.

In conducting his evaluation, he looked at the I-93 corridor traffic study prepared by VHB for the Merrimac Valley Planning Commission [MVPC] which evaluated:  (1)  a Trumpet Alternative, (2) a West Alternative One, (3) a West Alternative Two, (4) a West Alternative Three, and (5) evaluated the Fifth Alternative -- what he called the “Loop Alternative” which is the proposal that is being put forward by the Mills Corporation.   Also used were:  a publication entitled “Potential Employment Growth, Proposed I-93 Lowell Junction Interchange” prepared by Community Opportunities Group for the Merrimac Valley Economic Development Council published in November of 2003;  a memorandum entitled “Traffic Generation and Distribution for the Tewksbury/Mills Development” prepared by TEC, Inc. and dated November 12, 2003;  a “Lowell Junction Interchange Justification Report” prepared by TEC, Inc. for the Mills Corporation presented on June 12, 2003; and a drafted “Lowell Junction Interchange Study.”   Section 6 of that study in particular is the traffic analysis section of that study and prepared by VHB for the Merrimac Valley Planning Commission. 

Based on findings to date and his professional judgment as to the final result expected, he recommended that if an interchange is going to be constructed in the area, the “Loop Alternative” is the best alternative for the reasons mentioned including cost factor and is the only one that meets federal design criteria -- the one-mile spacing criteria between ramp junctions which would require a special waiver from the federal highway administration in order to gain construction.  Waivers are granted but do not come easily from the federal government in cases like this.  Appears that they will all be costly but the “Loop Alternative” less of a cost factor than the other 4 which have issues with environmentally sensitive areas, i.e.  much more construction of bridges.  It appears that the “Loop Alternative” would be designed in a way that would attract more traffic to the highways and less cars on the local roadway system compared to the other alternatives.   He will come up with a ranking system for the 5 alternatives in terms of the interchange evaluation.  In addition to that, he will also come up with some suggestions for mitigation, will be reviewing the potential impacts of the Mills project with or without interchange construction, reviewing any proposals for mitigation on local roadways made by the proponent of the Mills project, and adding his own recommendations for mitigation. 

Mr. Hajec added other items to cover at the next meeting:  Existing conditions analysis, existing traffic volumes, existing land use constraints, detailed/conceptual drawings of the interchange proposals, level of compliance with local, state and federal design criteria on each interchange proposal, their ability to maintain operational efficiency and stability, safety levels; ability to provide the fullest and most efficient service to surrounding land, both developed and undeveloped.  In Tewksbury and surrounding communities such as Andover, there’s a lot of development there now and also significant land available for development, the Perkins property just being a sample of that;  impact of each alternative on local, Tewksbury roadways; each alternative’s ability to provide some sort of interface with inter-modal transportation which is an important issue and looked upon very highly and favorably by the federal government in granting approval for construction and for funding of interchanges.  The “Loop Alternative” is being proposed at this point in time with a significant inter-modal interface; only in the very beginning stages of planning but what they’re talking about is some sort of a large park and ride lot with access to the highway or with direct or almost direct access to the highway; a commuter rail station – all things to go a long way in gaining funding approval and construction approval from the federal highway administration.  Not sure if the other 4 have any inter-modal interface or options.  Will be looking at costs of each and providing a ranking/grading system for each. 

Not a lot of detail from a numbers perspective available yet on the proposed project but there is a “Trip Generation and Distribution Report.”  Details of the numbers is enough to go ahead and do what’s been asked but there is a lot of concern, i.e. what exactly is the project going to do during peak hours; what’s it going to do on a Saturday;  during Christmas season to the local roadways -- all things that will have to be looked at and prepare an Environmental Impact Report to the state.  The state will make them crank out all the numbers for these alternatives and the town will get ample opportunity to review those numbers at such time as the document goes forward if Mills Corporation decides to go forward with their project.  A limited amount of numbers available right now in terms of trips, estimated trips, numbers of peak hours looked at, level of service calculations, etc., however he felt he had enough information to make a professionally intelligent decision based on his own calculations, to come forward with a recommendation or a ranking system for the interchange alternatives being proposed, as well as some mitigation alternatives for local roadways.  Those are his findings to date and he would be happy to answer any questions.

 

The Chairman opened the discussion to Board Members.

 

Mr. Sears requested Mr. Hajec to state the information provided in one paragraph to understand what his point was.   Mr. Hajec stated he did a study evaluating the interchange alternatives and to this point in time his preliminary finding will probably not change and will become final in about a week;  will provide a ranking system of the interchange alternatives and his ranking system will show the “Loop Alternative” interchange being proposed by the Mills Corporation as the best of the 5.  That is the case right now and he doesn’t think it will change but wants to crank out some more numbers to make sure.  Mr. Sears repeated that Mr. Hajec seems very hesitant to say it is the best of the 5, however not really prepared to give the numbers and if he is really so sure, why not come out and say it or if you don’t know the numbers, just say so.  Mr.Hajec stated he has the numbers, in the process of working with them but it would be professionally negligent to share them this evening.   Mr. Sears asked that since out of the 5 this is the most cost effective, it seems the other 4 were less costly as this was in the $25-30 Million range and the others were not.   Mr. Hajec responded that the others did not take into account environmental/wetlands constraints, eminent domain takings necessary – several factors they did not account for with only these 2 examples.  The final report will outline these factors in some detail.  Mr. Sears asked if this is premature since he is in the process but being asked to come up with a conclusion.   Mr. Hajec responded that this is the best conclusion at this point in time; a week from now much more definitive but my findings probably won’t change.  Mr. Sears referenced that from the study committee on Mills, item 3 says, “… report back to the Board of Selectmen upon completion of the study on the proposal’s impact.”  You don’t sound very complete.   Mr. Hajec responded he was working within the timeframe given and had done what was asked.

 

Mr. Shaw added this is in response to a letter sent by Mr. Cressman on behalf of your board to respond specifically to Mr. Wahr’s letter on the 5^th alternative proposal and not here to report on the aspects of the full project – specifically, just on the ramp system proposed.  The only action requested of the Board this evening, is to ask Merrimac Valley to consider this 5^th alternative amongst the other 4 that they are looking at right now.  Your action would not be an endorsement of the Mall concept which will come later; it is just to include that ramp alternative amongst the alternatives being examined by the Corridor Study Committee.

 

Mr. Gill asked if the “Loop” is the best for this process and you don’t think it’s going to change and asked if he was aware of the dump mitigation.  Mr. Hajec stated he did think the “Loop” was the best alternative and was aware of the dump being there.  Mr. Gill asked if this so-called “Loop” will aid in whatever mitigation takes place if fill has to be brought in or capping or whatever is final – will this loop system help in that process?  Mr. Hajec did not know but will know before the final report.    Mr. Shaw added that the petitioner or proponent has always advocated that they would assist the town in dealing with whatever was needed on the resolution of the Rocco’s issue and any aspect that Mills will be asked to take on behalf of the town would be written into a development agreement which would be proposed to the Town Meeting and that they would assist us in dealing with our issue as far as access to the Rocco’s dump site other than through the South Street neighborhood.  Mr. Gill stated that discussion of costs bothers him -- why should the town be involved in any discussion of cost since we’re not going to be involved with any of the payment -- this is completely out of our realm of issues,  no bearing on any decision since we’re not involved in paying for this, and it confuses matters.  Mr. Hajec replied that is true and something that’s usually evaluated in an engineering study. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if the loop interchange is the only one that would meet the design specification.

Mr. Hajec responded that for ramp spacing criteria, correct.  Mr. Ryan asked if in his professional opinion with the research done to say he felt comfortable making a recommendation  that we should take action to include the 5^th alternative into the study.   Mr. Hajec responded that he did because with the analysis level reached at this point in time, it is clearly the best alternative.  There are additional findings not committed to official paper to further back that up – will have them in final form in about a week.  Mr. Ryan asked him to address the terms used, “… the 5th alternative would minimize the traffic on local roadways…”  more specifically.  Mr. Hajec responded that in a document prepared for the Mills Corporation called a “Trip Generation and Trip Distribution”, they prepared an estimated peak hour analysis of trips that would be added to local streets and local roads affected by the project.  That analysis showed that the amount of cars would not significantly impact local roadways during PM peak hours and he agreed.  Mr. Ryan asked that after thousands of dollars have been spent in making designs and 4 proposals and you say this is the only one that’s going to make the federal design specification, this 5^th proposal, when did you determine the other 4 don’t make it; someone should have said that months ago.  Mr. Hajec responded that there’s no federal law that says they cannot apply for a waiver and waivers have been granted before but is unlikely.  Mr. Ryan added because they’re spending their money and they’re going to make you meet the design specifications they put forward.  Mr. Hajec, usually, that’s the way it works, yes.

 

Mr. Selissen asked about the environmental impact reports; who do you deal with -- MEPA, DEP, EPA -- and how long is that process going to take?  Mr. Hajec responded all of those agencies would be involved, from my area of expertise, primarily MEPA.  They would have to file an environmental notification form with a project of this magnitude, which in general outlines the potential environmental impacts, states what the trip generation will be, what the water flow increases will be -- from my point of view, I’m looking at the trips.  If MEPA determines an environmental impact report is necessary, the environmental notification form is prepared, then a draft environmental impact report and then usually, comments on the draft which then have to be addressed in what’s called a final environmental impact report.  Each of these documents has a comment period which is 30 days and then MEPA has another timetable but about a week or two after the 30-day period to issue their finding.  Then there’s a preparation period.  Mr. Selissen asked if the EPA is involved in this at all as he is familiar with the state portion because we just went through it recently with our sewer project and it took over 15 months and was for sewer expansion.   A project of this magnitude, we’re talking taking 15 months to two years so that precludes any building to that point -- they can’t go ahead with any construction until they get that final environmental impact report signed off on, correct?  Mr. Hajec responded he was correct.  Mr. Selissen asked if someone could address the South Street access from the Andover side.   Mr. Shaw replied in the current design proposal presented by Mills, there is no direct access to South Street through the proposed ramp system.  Mr. Selissen  asked if we are going to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Town of Andover if we were to go ahead with this project so that there would be no access from the Andover side?  Mr. Cressman responded that would be one of the things that we would look at in any municipal agreement with the Town of Andover in terms of this whole project.  Mr. Selissen added that if we have the leverage, we should press for that.

 

Mr. Coldwell asked him to expand on “…the loop alternative will attract more cars to the highway than local roads.”   Mr. Hajec responded that one of the other alternatives called the “Trumpet” does not provide full access.  This would be a full-access alternative to the highway meaning there’d be access and egress both from the northbound and southbound directions.   It would have the ability to attract people not only from Tewksbury but also makes it easier for people from surrounding communities to access the proposed site via the highway as opposed to local roads compared to proposals such as the trumpet as well as the others but using the trumpet as an example because it’s the most extreme.  Except for a small section of part of Billerica and some other sections of Tewksbury, most of the people accessing this site would use the highway, Rte. 93, and then the proposed new interchange to get to and from the site.   Mr. Coldwell asked about “positive impact on safety” and less impact on safety.   Mr. Hajec responded that he was referring to the ramp spacing in the other 4 alternatives not meeting the one mile criteria of the federal highway administration whereas the “Loop” alternative proposal does.  If you have Rte. 93 as a high speed roadway, 1 mile isn’t a whole lot when you have people accelerating and decelerating between ramps and have the potential for merging and diverging and weaving between those vehicles -- it creates an unsafe condition.   Mr. Coldwell asked him to address Inter-modal transportation.   Mr. Hajec responded that the Mills Corporation’s proposal right now is to have near the highway, a relatively large Park-N-Ride lot as well as a new commuter rail station that would go a long way towards providing inter-modal transportation to people in the immediate area as well as from outside the immediate area providing the ability to not only park for some sort of event, pool, shuttle service to different facilities, but also to park and use the train service to and from Boston and points North and South.  Mr. Coldwell asked if Tewksbury residents want to use that type of Park-N-Ride transportation, getting to that parking lot for the train off Rte. 93, wouldn’t it have impact on Tewksbury roads?  Mr. Hajec stated it should be minimal, adjacent to the highway in the preliminary planning stages.  Mr. Coldwell asked if he felt that this 5^th alternative has the least impact on local roads in his professional opinion than the other 4 proposals?  Mr. Hajec replied that yes and the final report will be presented to the Study Committee one week from tonight.  Mr. Coldwell inquired your committee stated that if a decision is reached for alternative 5, it has no bearing or endorsement on the project itself.   Mr. Shaw responded that he said it was not a direct endorsement of the Mall, only an endorsement of the concept of the 5^th ramp at this point as an alternative to be considered given the proposal we have before the town right now.

 

Mr. Sears stated that he can’t imagine how any of these 5 proposals have a minimal impact on Tewksbury traffic.  It’s bad enough trying to take a left off of Bridge Street in the morning to go down by DeMoulas and nobody stops coming down Shawsheen Street to also take a left in the other direction; not happy to hear the word minimal, don’t think you drive our roads.  Also not happy that professionally you haven’t included the Rocco’s dump in your report.  You may not have been asked to do so but professionally, that’s the 800 pound gorilla, not Mills as far as I’m concerned because this is what the EPA has told us.  We’ve got to do this whether we like it or don’t.  Same EPA that’s going to determine all these environmental impacts;  can’t imagine how they’re going to determine any environmental impacts on any of these 5 proposals without reminding us of the great big dump over there that we’ve got to fix.   Concerned about how this 5^th proposal would be of any use to fixing up Rocco’s dump and his personal view is that it would be better for trucks to go in and off Rte. 93 to get to Rocco’s dump than going down South Street, etc. and thinks there is room for some sort of a ramp.  As Mr. Shaw said something about there being a possibility of the 5^th alternative including a development plan or a provision to do that and maybe someone from Mills would address that so it won’t be committee hearsay.

 

The Chairman stated this hearing was about the interchange and opening it up will end up with a fierce debate.  The Mills people will comment, those who disagree will comment, and we’re going nowhere with that.  What is the specific question?  Mr. Sears:  The point is, unless you connect any alternative of a ramp with Rocco’s dump, it’s a useless discussion.  Mr. Coldwell asked that as Mr. Sears sits on this committee that meets every other Tuesday night, and if he raised that question to the Mills people, what kind of answer did he get?.   Mr. Sears replied that we have discussed that earlier on when we had a fellow from the EPA come in and the answer is that Mills would probably include it in some way, just as Gator is going to include it in some way, and I don’t know exactly what that way’s going to be.

 

Mr. Shaw added that is the whole purpose of the development agreement, to go hand in hand with whatever rezoning so that things like this that Mr. Sears brings up, can be incorporated, the town can be assured that they will happen, and we will have some mechanism of enforcement.  Attorney Brabowski has been retained as Special Counsel on the project to guide us in these matters and that is what the peer review team is all about, Mr. Hajec just being one member of this review team.  They will come back with these items which will be included in the final development agreement to go hand in hand with the Zoning agreement.  The board may recall we had a similar situation in North Tewksbury about 2 years ago where a development agreement accompanied the rezoning through Town Meeting so that people knew what they were getting.  Directed to Mr. Sears, yes that has been presented at least sitting and Chairing the meetings I’ve heard in the affirmative from the Mills folks that they will include and help us with our mitigation; it is not their problem, it’s the town’s problem but they will aid and assist us in dealing with our problem.   Mr. Coldwell stated that the issue with the landfill is a complex one and both Mr. Cressman and I have spent an inordinate amount of time with the team trying to determine who owes what and what owes who -- frankly, it will take a long time to get that taken care of.  Mr. Shaw added that the folks that will be negotiating the development agreement will ultimately return to your board to refine the points of those items that you would like seen in the agreement.  The committee will merely outline what our peer review has suggested should be in there plus our discussion with Attorney Brabowski but the final agreement that is presented to Town Meeting for approval would be one that is drafted and approved by your board.

 

The Chairman noted there were no further comments from the board and opened the public hearing to residents.  He requested that anyone who wished to speak on the anti side or pro side, would be allowed to speak providing they are under 35 in number with the guidelines that Tewksbury residents speak first and for all to try not to be repetitious and stick to the subject of the I-93 Interchange. 

 

Tewksbury Residents:  The following residents appeared to voice their personal opinions, concerns, and suggestions on this issue. 

Bob Ferrari, 676 East Street

Amar Bagul, 99 Jennies Way

Maria Damian Fishlin, 120 Jennies Way

Alan Fishlin, 120 Jennies Way

Robert Kelley, 75 Mill Street

Judy Fittery, 19 Bemis Circle

Michelle Walsh, 90 Rounsevell Road

Jamie Cutelis, 1 Woodcrest Drive

Steven Andrews, no address given

David Wahr of the Mills Corporation deferred to Tewksbury residents; did not speak later

Joe Richmond, 39 Ballard Street

Larry Knight, 17 David Street

Colin Bradford, 11 Memorial Drive

Patrick Grecco, 130 Jennies Way

Tim Sheehan, 43 Wilson Road

Richard O’Neill representing Perkins Development Trust and Resident of 140 John Street

David Silva, 1223 Shawsheen Street

 

A synopsis of the above residents’ comments follow.  Responses are in italics.

 

Heard Mills wasn’t going to give any money towards any mitigation of Rocco’s dump - get it in writing before you sign anything for a ramp;  estimate of 36 additional cars on East Street for a destination Mall is too low; Federal highway system will make an exemption to allow less than a mile between exits to develop this land;  if this Mall is such a good thing, why did Ayer and Weymouth with former air base lands, turn it down.  Weymouth would like the revenue but it would affect their quality of life – their leaders and voters shot it down. Be pro-active and look at the facts on the other 4 proposals; don’t believe all the facts from the other side; all the proposals would have some impact on Tewksbury streets; these impacts would be more than the loop alternative, with or without the Mall.   The Board of Selectmen had taken a stance to not support any alternative where traffic emptied directly onto Tewksbury streets, particularly South Street.  Traffic only one issue; a large plot of land on the highway -- use it for office space, commercial business, small hotels – to be ready when the tech boom happens again; look at other proposals and not just this new fifth “Loop” proposal.

 

Regarding the letter in question we are asking to rescind, why was that written?   Response:  It was the December 2002 letter, four alternatives were presented by the Merrimac Valley Economic Development Council who sought the town’s support of those proposals or at least one proposal -- the board took the position that they did not support those proposals at that time or any proposal impacting Tewksbury streets -- now a fifth alternative proposed.  The town and its Board of Selectmen have to indicate by February 1 that they want consideration of the fifth alternative or we will be left with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Highway Administration and the Merrimac Valley Regional Planning Council, all considering four alternatives which the board did not support in December of 2002.  An addendum to that is one of the big problems this board had was with the Gator Group who didn’t give us a plan, never was a plan introduced which is entirely different from what’s before us now. 

 

Please look closer at the trumpet interchange which does not connect to any local streets on the Tewksbury side; why wouldn’t that be our first choice if we were to write a recommendation letter as to what the town prefers.  Response:  There is land available for development, some land already developed on both sides of the highway.  The trumpet interchange would provide service to the other side of the highway, no service to the land on the Tewksbury side, and would keep those parcels land locked.  If those parcels are land locked and there is no interchange built that connects to them, the full build out of the Perkins property in a residential development would result in far more trips on Tewksbury roadways than the build out of the Mills Corporation proposal with the loop interchange.   If one of the main concerns was we do not want any impact on the Tewksbury side of things, then that trumpet interchange is the superior one.  Why should we be worried about how the land can be developed there?  How many more trips is housing going to have on that side?  It’s definitely going to be less of an impact traffic wise than a Mall – don’t agree with the conclusions being putting forth here.  Mr. Hajec has already made up his mind without going through all the calculations and we are going with an assumption that a Mall is going to go in there – seems like all the calculations are around that assumption.

 

The ramp will be 170 feet from my neighbor’s house on Jennies Way – not their yard, their house – at some point will you be commenting on the number of trips on the ramp going by our homes?   Response:  Will be part of the evaluation, although there won’t be any additional trips in your neighborhood.  That particular design will be adding an acceleration/deceleration lane as part of the ramp system which will be a certain distance from your street, will actually move the first travel lane of the highway further away from your street.  At the Mills Committee meeting, it was stated that Mr. Hajec had never reviewed a project such as the Mall.   Response:  Worked on a large mall about this size or larger in Shrewsbury, MA and actually worked for the project proponent in that case and worked for the proponent of the Shopper’s World Mall;  most of my work for Malls was done for Mall proponents and I  have extensive experience in doing traffic studies.  The safety and compliance levels should be looked at again, environmental issues.  This ramp will access only one private property.  Response:  This ramp as proposed will provide a total loop system to connect both east and west sides of the highway also giving other owners of land in the area, other development opportunities on the east side of the highway that also reside in Tewksbury of which we could also receive benefit.

 

Zoning -- this land has not been rezoned as yet?  Response:  That is correct.  So maybe we should consider the 6^th alternative which is no ramp.  It is the safest, provides the least amount of environmental damage, no pollution in addition to what is there now.  Suggest we look at the 6^th proposal which is best for the residents of South Tewksbury.  Regarding the incomplete studies Mr. Hajec has done, most professionals prefer to present a complete report rather than just go on a hunch; we should wait for a complete report.  At the MVPC meeting, they said they would not consider any additional proposals to property that was not appropriately zoned and appropriate for that type of  project.   Response:  That issue did arise but within the last month, they indicated that as long as the town got a response in prior to February 1, they would consider it with the understanding that there is a timeline the town is looking at in deciding whether to rezone it or not and they have their own internal schedule to follow to get the report together.

 

This proposed ramp would be a federal/state project and most projects of that nature go on for years.  What is the rush in time here to put forth a letter to them that we don’t have the facts on yet.  What will the letter contain?  Will it be endorsement of this ramp or just a suggestion that it is okay to look at but we’re not endorsing it?  Will a letter be available for public comment prior to being sent out?  If a letter comes from the Board of Selectmen, I believe you are representing the town of Tewksbury and it would be nice if the residents of the town knew exactly what you are saying to the MVPC on behalf of us.  In the past, you’ve recommended not having any ramp.  Response:  The recommendation in the past was that the previous proposals weren’t acceptable to the town of Tewksbury; sent that letter but we didn’t ask for public comment.  Board looked at other alternatives including the trumpet ramp back in 2002.  Resident cautioned they have been revised and urged the Board to look at those proposals again yourselves, consider what you’ve heard from this peer reviewer who still hasn’t provided any complete information, and make a decision on what you do see including the final report from the traffic consultant.

Referencing Mr. Hajec’s experience, mentioned the Shrewsbury Mall which is 700,000 sq. ft. but no dimensions of that mall and traffic conditions -- Mills Malls bring 14 million cars a year into highway and secondary roads -- a destination Mall where people stay for 3-4 hours a day and don’t go in and out like at DeMoulas.  We were told that the peer reviewers make fact finding studies of the analysis done by the Mills Corporations and their consultants, and not to make recommendations to any of the decisions that have to be made on this whole project.  Everyone on the committee was told this; a flawed system for him to come back with recommendations.

Hard to believe why Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, the large traffic study engineers used for the project, would even consider putting on paper after 3 years of study, 4 proposed access ramps that didn’t meet Federal Highway standards at a cost of millions of dollars.  The whole peer review is supposed to be fact finding – whole study committee fact finding – not making recommendations and here we are with the study committee making recommendations.  The trumpet interchange doesn’t have access to Tewksbury roads;  has access to the Gillette and Wyeth properties across the street.  The Commerce Way interchange is a trumpet interchange in Woburn and Reading and connects to the Woburn/Commerce Way side but doesn’t connect to the Reading side.  They said we don’t want commercial development on our side of the highway and refused to have access into Reading.  They want to preserve a community character that is residential, bedroom, good for their quality of life.  Woburn made mistakes years ago and they’re living with those mistakes; this trumpet interchange helped them over there and Reading said no development on the Reading side of the highway. 

As far as the standards of distance between interchanges, at Rte. 125 and Rte. 62 in Wilmington, not much less than a mile between those two interchanges so there are ways around the standards if that’s the situation there.  As far as Gillette and Wyeth are concerned, this whole project of the corridor study was to alleviate the traffic problems in Andover and the Ballardvale section.  It wasn’t to create traffic problems; the Federal Highway Administration wants to move traffic, not create traffic.  This Mall, this ramp proposal is so convoluted, so complex and so costly, that it will create millions of cars a year in additional traffic, in already a level of service that’s a level F today -- they have to expand the roadways to 4 travel lanes to make that happen.  The Highway Administration isn’t going to pay $35 Million in our gas tax money to do an interchange that will benefit a Mills Corporation or the Perkins family for their property.  Costs: the trumpet interchange is $16 Million, don’t know if it includes eminent domain taking of the Perkins property, but versus $35 Million estimated for the Mills proposal and the Mills proposal dumps traffic off into Andover and Wilmington.  Don’t know if the Andover and Wilmington people are aware of how much traffic will be dumped into their property when they can’t get into the Mills Mall. 

The Merrimac Valley Corridor Study didn’t include a review of East Street and Dascomb Road – the situation can only get worse with this much traffic coming through.  With the DeMoulas warehouse expansion, more truck traffic coming across that way than the estimated 34 cars.  The corridor study didn’t anticipate a mall coming into that property off of Rte. 93, the Perkins property.  It was looked at for commercial development, sort of R&D office space as the 3 million sq. ft. build out -- the public involvement in the interchange for I-93 in Tewksbury and Wilmington is flawed because it didn’t have enough public involvement. 

At the meeting in Methuen with the MVEDC, we heard they wanted a decision from the Tewksbury residents that a zoning change would be made for that property.  They didn’t say anything about the Selectmen making the recommendation so this is news to all of us.  The MVEDC which was here in December of 2002, shows schematics of the proposed interchanges -- that’s not the MVPC, that was a different proposal.  This new proposal by the corridor study by the MVPC is a different proposal so the trumpet interchange we’re talking about now is something different than what you saw here that night in 2002.  Suggest you take a look at this corridor study, an important read for all of us to understand what’s going on here, and try to get the MVPC and some other planning agents together to talk about what’s right for this property; what the right access ramp proposal is here, not just accept things because we’re being rushed to make a decision by February 1 because the proponent has to get something done on this property -- not a Tewksbury decision -- that’s a decision made for a special interest.

Upset with the Chairman telling an audience of people he works for not to get up and speak unless they can make other points than what someone else has made when in fact numerous times, points have been made by the panel and been repetitive and non-germain to the issue and should have been stopped at the time they were made.  Town officials should not be making any recommendation to Merrimack Valley on anything that does not affect this town.  Who are they to come in and tell us that we have to put an interchange in that is going to change the fabric of this town completely and forever.  A report about emergency vehicles at 400 trips a year times 2 is 800 which is a different number than we heard before.  It is unconscionable that all this money and time is being spent under the guise of a Merrimac Valley proposal to abate traffic on the Andover side when in fact we know the only proposal that will do that is the trumpet and the only one not being supported here tonight.  This is not just benefiting Andover, it’s for Mills.  When did they become so important that our town fathers turned deaf ears to their representatives.  When I elect my representatives, I elect them to represent the broadest feelings and broadest base where I’m living.  I was taught to stand up for something you believe in; we fought the British, we’ll fight you, we’ll fight Mills.  Mills doesn’t have a right to come in and dictate what we are going to do with our town.

Resident’s general comment on the Mills proposal -- the information discussed over the past months formulates my opinion that the Mall is not the location for Tewksbury.  The revenue generated is attractive but look at an alternative commercial entity for this site, one which will generate equal or greater revenue with fewer negative impacts.  We have a unique opportunity to be included in deciding the best possible use of the site.  Union members gain benefit of jobs building any commercial building; it doesn’t have to be a Mall.  Gillette and Wyeth are across the street in Andover and similar companies can likewise flourish across the highway in Tewksbury without many of the negative impacts of a large mall.  Urged the board to seriously consider other commercial options for this site. 

The only issue tonight for consideration is whether or not to add that 5^th alternative proposed.  It’s in the best interest of all the people of Tewksbury to consider that alternative which has the potential to bring us $3 Million a year in our tax revenue and this town needs that money.  The total commercial property taxes probably $20 Million if that much, and this will be more than 10% of that.  The mall project is a good project for the town, impacts a certain neighborhood over there and everything should be done to protect that neighborhood from any negative impacts and as long as there’s no access on South Street, see if that can be written into all the development agreements.  In the proposal, there are no roadway connections to any of our local streets, all off ramps off the highway, if done right, mall can benefit our town to the tune of $3 Million a year.

On the interchange, the 5^th proposal -- isn’t that the only proposal before the board that if we do have something going on with Rocco’s dump, the access is already on that side of the road?  Response:  That’s correct.  That’s something for the town to consider;  access already there and if we could get a permit somehow at a later date when that litigation goes through that we do have access for that Rocco’s area, is a good thing -- a viable solution for the town for that problem.  I am for the Mall.  How many students are added to this town’s school system by building that Mall?  I’m for no more housing in that area – if that area went 40B, the traffic generated off of that alone, far outweighs what comes out of that Mall.  I can’t see why anyone who lived in Wilmington would travel through Tewksbury to go to that Mall when they have 3 exits onto that interstate or why anyone who lives in Lowell, would even consider traveling down Rte. 38 to go there, and Andover won’t be using it.  It leaves Billerica where some residents will travel through there but the number is probably small.  When it does open, the trucking added to the local roads is zero.  What does the ramp actually cost the town of Tewksbury?  Response:  Nothing.   So that 5^th option should be considered by the board as it does have benefits later on, Rocco’s dump as one of them.  Any access to the streets of Tewksbury from the 5^th proposal?  Response:  Just emergency access.   Heard that $500,000 would be added to the fire dept. budget which benefits the town of Tewksbury not just the Mall, hopes town considers the 5^th alternative.

In favor of at least considering the 5^th proposal.  Has least impact of all the proposals; would like to see the board consider it and be looked at by the planning committee; an opportunity for us to control it as opposed to the state or the federal government deciding what’s good for us.  This impacts local roads the least and on Rocco’s dump, can’t see why there can’t be an access road from the loop system so that all of those trucks coming and going from Rte. 93 and not down South Street, over Bridge Street, Shawsheen Street.  Putting the Mall aside, we should consider the 5^th alternative for the ramp – if they walk they walk – but that interchange will be there; if commercial space is what that land calls for, that’s what will go there. 

Asked if the public comment period on the I-93 corridor study ends on February 1, has the traffic engineer commented with regards to the 4 lousy ramp proposals being proposed by the current I-93 corridor study.  Response:  No, was asked to submit documents to the town as the town’s consultant and the town could always forward them to whoever they wanted to.  Retained by the town and asked to submit documents to the town; given specific scope of work by the town.

 

I cut through Billerica to get to the Burlington Mall  but do not expect people from Burlington/Bedford/Billerica area to get on Rte. 128 and come up Rte. 93 to access the Mall. People from Chelmsford, Westford, Tyngsboro would also come through Rte. 38 to East Street to the Mall.  Mills Malls attract a different type of business, not a simple retail element here -- a “Shop-A-Tainment World” – they provide more than some place to just buy a pair of pants, etc.  Their intentions are to get people in there and keep them there for 4 or 5 hours at a time -- situation not being considered in Mr. Hajec’s studies where people come and stay.  They tie up parking lots, create backlogs on highways, because people aren’t coming and going.  Regards to cost, we’re all federal and state taxpayers.  In the end whether this mall is $16 Million or $35 Million, we’re paying for it.  I’d rather pay $16 Million than $35 Million.  On emergency vehicles, the studies on the Burlington Mall indicate roughly 465 fire trips per year, including ambulance.  In addition, Police calls to the Burlington Mall numbered in the vicinity of 1,700 so combined, it is roughly 2,100 vehicles and 4,200 trips.  You can debate whether these vehicles will go Rte. 93 or South Street, my guess is South Street.

On the trumpet proposal, would that be a land lock where it is residential?  Response:  The trumpet provided service to the Andover side of the highway and in terms of interchange access, that would land lock the Perkins property which is part of the Mills development.  With that parcel not having interchange service, would preclude it from being developed in a way that’s being proposed by the Mills Corporation, however, being land locked from the interchange system would not necessarily preclude it from being developed fully -- residentially -- which would add much more traffic to the Tewksbury streets than if developed with a Loop Ramp alternative and the Mills Mall.  Just the condominiums at Indian Ridge nearby has made it 100 times more difficult to get out of my street; propose to definitely consider proposal 5 as more residential means more people shopping at DeMoulas, Dunkin Donuts, down Rte. 38, Shawsheen Street – residential will bring more traffic than the off ramp.  Doubts surrounding towns will use local access roads but residential housing definitely would, affecting traffic locally.   Local neighborhood affected by the ramp should work with the agreement for protection from noise and pollution.

Asked the committee that before considering another proposal, think about the families that live there.  The expense to the Town of Tewksbury are the children who live in our town; with cars passing within hundreds of feet of their houses, bedrooms, backyards, sandboxes – don’t want my child to get sick because thousands of cars are blowing out exhaust that they breathe.  Consider the impact any proposal will have on our families, it’s a close neighborhood and concerned about our children.  We don’t care about the Mall coming in and the $3 Million in tax revenue to the town, doesn’t come to the residents, no reduction in personal taxes to this town.

 

Lives behind the Trahan School.  Wants the ramp put in because if we don’t, we will end up with more housing in that area of town, particularly low income housing possibility.

Focussing on the ramp, the letter sent in December 2001, focused primarily on the 3 alternatives known to us at the time and provided for:  (1)  a ramp on the Perkins property that provided direct access to South Street; (2) a ramp on the Perkins property that provided direct access to Salem Street; and (3) a ramp on the Perkins property that provided direct access to Rte. 125 – the 3^rd was some form of a slip ramp.  This proposal in front of you is consistent with the actions that have been taken by the Master Plan Committee, and their recommendations to the Planning Board which is that if this town chooses to rezone that property for use as commercial office research, a hotel convention center, and for commercial retail which is the present zoning proposal before your subcommittee, there needs to be a better ramp servicing that site and it is not one of those 3 alternatives nor is it the trumpet.  The comment period closes the first of February; we may not get another chance.  Endorsing the 5^th alternative for further study does not mean that we are not going before Town Meeting for a zoning review, does not mean we will not go before the planning board and whatever other committee we have to go before for planning permits – it simply means that those other alternatives fail in meeting the Master Plan recommendations and the only alternative is the alternative that Mr. Hajec has told you complies with the federal highway guidelines as well as the directives that this board has put out in the future.   If there is no ramp, then there is housing because that is the underlying zone that will sit there.  There is no veiled threat – it’s what you are proposing as the alternative to zone that site with access to South Street.  It is incumbent upon us to make sure the 5^th alternative gets studied by the Merrimac Valley Planning Commission.

Wants to clarify something just said about the subcommittee that studied both North and South Tewksbury.  As a member of that committee, 4 out of the 5 members voted to rank the uses for that area as follows:  #1 office research, #2 golf course/convention center, #3 commercial retail.  We ranked it from the most to the least so the most useful was the office research and 4 out of the 5 members agreed with that and when our Minutes came out, it didn’t reflect that.  We requested to have another follow up meeting with our Chairman, who refused to hold another meeting and we were railroaded at the Master Plan meeting because they turned around and they did not rank them.  Our ranking was coming also from the consultant who was telling us that we should resist the type of development that this mall is going to bring in.  I want to set the record straight – 4 out of the 5 members of that subcommittee did not rank it the way just said.  Retail/commercial was ranked as the least useful.

Concerned about the 5^th alternative’s connection from the ramp on the Andover side, North of Jennies Way and how it is going to be connected to the Mall site and the road that goes around the Jennies Way subdivision; also concerned about the conservation land involved.    As part of Jennies Way, the developer was obligated to leave 3 open space parcels which he could not build on and this is one of the parcels which will get cut into because of having to put this road in that narrow space there. The zoning law obligates you to keep an open space for that subdivision and here we are recommending something else which is now negating the very obligation that the zoning law has suggested.  Response:   They were not going to affect the open space of the Jennies Way subdivision because that would require an Article 97 finding so they are going to stay within the right of way of Rte. 93, however, they may have to shift part of Rte. 93 over towards Andover and shifting within a right of way is something that can occur and does occur when you do construction.  There isn’t enough total width within the existing Rte. 93 to get all that in so that on the Andover side, where the ramps would be coming on and off, there would be redefinition of I-93 on that side to extend the right of way.  We’re going to hold the edge of the right of way of I-93 on the East side so that we can’t impact the existing conservation land behind Jennie’s Way, one of the design constraints.  The resident urged the board to please take into consideration our families, our lives – this ramp at 32,000 cars a day is going to go 100 feet behind our houses so please keep that in mind.

We have land currently zoned residential and we’re considering a ramp proposal with one intent right now – to accommodate a Mall.  If town meeting shoots down a rezoning alternative, we don’t have a Mall but we still have a ramp and we have a ramp in a residential zoned area.  What happens in that scenario?  Response:  If you look at the 5^th alternative closely, it still provides developable land on the Perkins property that could be developed as residential.  There’s not a necessity for that connector road to have any direct access – it could become part of the federal system instead of a local road so you’d have a ramp connection on the southbound of I-93 and you’d have an overpass, and no connection to residential.   I like the beauty and the elegance of the 5^th alternative.  It provides for opportunities for alternative land uses on parcels instead of setting an interchange on developable parcels.  The resident finds it hard to comprehend that we’re going to have a ramp in a residential area.  Response:  You could conceivably wind up with that next to a residential area.  That would be something for the town officials to make a decision on what direction they want it to go. 

I’m laying out a scenario where we don’t rezone the land and we’re still going to end up with a ramp.  Are there any other ramp alternatives other than this ramp alternative that would allow commercial development of the property but doesn’t infringe on the people of Jennies Way as much as this particular one does.  Has anybody considered anything else other than a ramp proposal with an intent to build this particular Mall development?  We’ve been walked into tunnel vision here on this Mills proposal thing and we’re not considering anything else.  Response:  If  people spent all their time looking at interchange ideas, maybe they would come up with another alternative.   If you’re going to have commercial development and service the east side of the highway, there is going to be a peak demand of traffic – forget the Mills, forget retail, go R&D on the Perkins property, going to let Andover build Wyeth out, Gillette out, Wilmington build out their area out there and will all be R&D as some people have strongly urged today from what I’ve heard.  R&D is heavy traffic from 7AM to 9AM from 3PM or 4PM to 6PM -- that’s when they’ve had cops directing traffic.  All those cars coming off 93 for R&D – where will you store them?  One of the things and beauty of the 5^th alternative is it creates a loop system which tends to take the vehicles off of 93 and moves them out and disperses them throughout that loop as to where they’re going to go.  If you look at some of the other alternatives that have been proposed here, there isn’t that type of place for storage of those vehicles and therefore they have to be stored somewhere and they’ll probably end up being stored up on 93.  When I talk about storing, sometimes if you go down to Westford in the mornings on 495, you’ll see traffic backed up onto 495 – that’s what I call storing it on an interstate highway. 

I think that a Mall that proposes to keep people in the parking lots for 4 and 5 hours will create the same sort of backlog on a loop situation.   Response:  The Mall’s peak hours are not primarily in the morning where your R&D’s is, and the loop proposal disperses the traffic around and also provides some storage for that traffic.  The resident prefers a traffic situation involving a peak traffic timeframe  rather than one that goes on from 9AM ‘til 10PM or later at night -- nobody has said how long Mills intends to operate this business; we know retail stores typically would be thru 9 or 10PM but we also know they’re talking about a cinema aspect to this, dining areas and restaurants, etc.  This traffic situation could go on potentially to 1AM with liquor licenses and so on.  Do any other proposed ramp proposals also allow access to Rocco’s dump in some shape or form or could they, i.e. would probably have to be a secondary road built off of this loop which brings us to who pays for that?   What I heard tonight is the loop proposal and the proponents have come in and said that they will allow the town to utilize that loop area to run an access road over to Rocco’s and allow traffic to go from Rocco’s up on to 93 with all these dump trucks.  Do any ramp alternatives offer the same potential?  Response:  Not aware of any; they do not offer any access to the dump, not without major construction added to them.  The loop alternative offers the potential to connect directly over a shorter distance than the others which would require much more of a major construction effort. 

We had a Master Zoning Plan done in 1991 which is when I found out about the contamination of Rocco’s.  Each area of town had an opportunity at that time to meet with the Master Planning Committee and decide if what they were proposing was what they could live with.  When they came down to South Tewksbury, that land was heavy industry and we fought hard to get it changed to residential and the committee at that time said just give a buffer strip along South Street residential and leave the rest heavy industry.  They left saying that’s what they were going to do even though a couple of hundred people at that meeting said no, we want it all changed to residential.  It was such a fire issue at the time, the Master Planning Committee came back and said, okay we will not only honor all the rest of the town’s decisions for their area for what they want but we will also honor South Tewksbury’s to change that land to residential.  In light of this, people will have to start thinking that they had a choice before and I like to think we will all honor everybody else’s choice because what happens to us in South Tewksbury, happens to everybody else in the town.  Chief Seattle said, “Life is like a spider web; whatever you do to it, you do to me.”  That’s what will happen to this town if we let these ramps come in and we let Mills come in.

The trumpet interchange allows access to the property that would be taken by eminent domain so there would be access for the dump to be remediated through the trumpet interchange.  It seems to me that the Selectmen haven’t read Chapter 6 of the corridor study which deals with the ramps and look at the recommendations both from a cost and impact standpoint and let’s have the MVPC come here and listen to  both sides of the presentations here as to what’s right for an access ramp in that area whether it’s Tewksbury, Wilmington, or whatever.  We’ve got an opportunity here to do the right thing for this property and not take away a profitable, windfall gain from the Perkins family -- hope they make as much as they can for it but not at the risk of demising our quality of life forever in this town.  We should have a public forum where everybody can weigh in with the Mass Highway Administration and the MVPC and the Merrimac Valley Northern Middlesex Council of Governments – all the planning agents to talk about what’s right for this area.  We are polarizing the community over this effort because some private company out of Virginia thinks they can come in here and tell us what to do -- that’s absolutely wrong.  This is a democracy.

Regarding access to the Rocco landfill, Perkins and Mills have both told the town they would try to work with the town relative to time deadlines and Mr. Sears invited representatives from the EPA to the study committee.  We spent one whole evening with the project manager of the Sutton Brook landfill problem and he anticipated that the land fill would be available for re-mediation sometime about 2008 and he anticipated that between now and then, time would be taken up with the PRP’s trying to come to an agreement as to who had what responsibilities and so forth.  The study committee went through a timetable and chronology with what we had to go through relative to zoning, MEPA, etc., when we would be available if everything went swimmingly and we would be in a position to have developed a roadway infrastructure at or about the time that the EPA was saying it would then be ready to remediate Sutton Brook.  We told the Mills subcommittee and your committee and town manager that we are prepared to enter into as part of the development agreement with the town, a commitment from us that if in fact a ramp is built that permits us to develop this site as proposed, we would make that ramp and roadway system available to the town in order to assist the town in remediating the Sutton Brook dump.  That is something we will put into that agreement which will run with the land, meaning it is enforceable to us ad infinitum -- that is a position taken from day one. 

The second issue is the slippery slope about we don’t want a ramp because we want it residential but we really want commercial so how do we go about getting a ramp that does x, y, and z or what will happen if we get another alternative that comes in, how can we access Sutton Brook?  The fact is, you can’t do that without cooperating with the land owner.  If the property is not rezoned, then by right it can be developed residentially and it will be developed residentially.  To get to Sutton Brook, you’ll have to knock the houses down that will be in the way.  It’s that simple.  The Perkins people who are here this evening have been cooperating with the townspeople who wish to consider the use of that property for commercial purposes.  They have not stood up here and yelled and said you must do this.  We have said, these are folks who have come in, looked to us and everybody in this room to determine whether or not we should rezone this property commercially and Perkins said, okay, we’ll take a shot at that.  If it’s not rezoned commercially, then it will be developed.  When you talk about the property, you have to talk about the property with a ramp or without a ramp.  You can’t get up here and slippery slope it and say, don’t put a ramp in but we want to use it commercially.  And you can’t get up and say, don’t view the 5^th alternative and “…let other folks determine our fate...” because the Federal Highway system will come in and put that ramp wherever it wants to put it within Federal guidelines.  We will have a ramp; the east side of that highway is called Andover and it needs a ramp… the question is whether Tewksbury will have a voice in where that ramp goes and how it impacts our community or whether we’re just going to duck.

Wants to refute former speaker’s remarks as he presented two alternatives -- a ramp or no ramp –  there are more than that.  There are 4 different ramp proposals in front of us and the trumpet interchange has the least impact on the Jennies Way residents and can also be developed to cater to the commercial development if they want to put commercial down there.  By saying that the 5^th  loop alternative is the only one that can support commercial development there, is not 100% true.  There are other alternatives which have less impact on Jennies Way and can provide the commercial development they are looking for and it should also be considered.

 

Non-Residents

Brandon Kelly, R.J. Kelly Company:  Not a Tewksbury resident but owns land on the other side of the highway from Tewksbury.   This interchange is the first interchange we’ve seen that is economically feasible and viable and promotes not only sound infrastructure investment but development in that area.  The 4 interchanges proposed by the MVPC would most likely take all of our land and render it useless for development and that taking would probably exceed $10 million.  The proposals cut our land directly in half with the land which is in Tewksbury.  This proposal doesn’t – looks at the big picture, the investment the state will make, the feds will make, and the prospects for economic development in the area.  We think it is a balanced approach and urge you to consider that tonight.

 

Mr. Coldwell reminded all that it has been 2 ½ hours and asked the board what action to take.

 

Motion by Mr. Gill to rescind the action taken on the November 26, 2002 meeting indicating our opposition for a ramp.  Seconded by Mr. Sears.  For discussion, Mr. Sears asked, are we saying we don’t like 1, 2, 3, and 4 now or we do like 1, 2, 3, 4 now?   Motion withdrawn by Mr. Gill.  Second withdrawn by Mr. Sears.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that for the last 2 hours and 20 minutes, we listened to our residents on both sides of this issue.  Somebody pointed out earlier that residents of both sides should have the opportunity to hear the entire report and have a complete report and all options be brought before the committee.  This is an all-inclusive process.  Every detail, every aspect, every proposal should be included and evaluated in the discussion and it should be part of the report and should be part of the final summation.

 

Motion by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Gill, that this Board approve the proposed 5^th alternative, which is the loop alternative, for an interchange at the Lowell Junction location as proposed by the Mills Corporation to be considered in the review of the corridor traffic study.  Unanimous vote.

 

Mr. Shaw requested a Point of Order that the request they made was that the letter be advanced to the Merrimac Valley Planning Council.

 

Mr. Coldwell clarified that this is just an approval and does not have any impact on the proposal, not an endorsement of any type. 

Mr. Selissen asked for clarification of the Motion from Mr. Ryan, i.e. we are including the 5^th alternative plus all 4 others -- a total of 5 will be under consideration? 

Mr. Ryan stated that is correct and the Motion is strictly including the 5^th alternative.

 

The Chairman reminded all that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2004 at 7:30P.M.

 

Seeing no further business before them, Motion by Mr. Gill, seconded by Mr. Selissen, unanimous vote to adjourn at 11:30P.M.   On a roll call vote, Mr. Selissen, Mr. Sears, Mr. Gill, Mr. Ryan, Chairman Coldwell all in favor. 

 

           

 

                        ___________________________

         Jerome E. Selissen, Clerk