HANSCOM AREA TOWNS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held at 7:30 PM on June 26, 2008
At Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT:
Sara Mattes Lincoln Board of Selectmen (Chair)
Jeanne Krieger Lexington Board of Selectmen
Anne Shapiro Concord Board of Selectmen
Mike Rosenberg Bedford Board of Selectmen
Dorothy Steele Massport
Margaret Coppe Lexington HATS
Richard Canale Lexington Planning Board
Lisa Mustapich Bedford Planning Board
Bob Domnitz Lincoln Planning Board
James Craig Lincoln Planning Board
Marilyn Fenollosa Lexington CPC and Historical Commission
Rob Todd Lincoln Historical Society
Nancy Butman Concord Historical Commission
Deborah Bier Concord Historical Commisssion
Bob Slechta Bedford HDC, HPC
Don Corey Bedford HDC, HPC
Ruth Wales Lincoln HC, HDC
Lucretia Giese Lincoln HC, HDC
Catherine Perry Lincoln Planning Department
7:30 PM INTRODUCTION
The Chairman outlined the agenda and welcomed the main speaker, Marilyn Fenollosa of Lexington, who is an attorney with extensive experience of historic preservation issues.
7:35 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman announced that a Section 106 Review process has been commenced for the proposal to demolish Hangar 24 at Hanscom, where Charles Draper developed his ideas for inertial navigation. On July 17th at 7:00 PM, HATS will host a consultative public meeting sponsored by the FAA and Massport, in Bemis Hall, Bedford Road, Lincoln.
7:40 PM UPDATE on MA Campaign to bring Cyber Command to HAFB
The Chairman reported on a meeting at the Massachusetts High Technology Council and a reception for the Secretary to the Air Force. The Governor has produced a first draft of the response to the data call. The four HATS towns voted on letters of support, and a letter of support from HATS (as previously voted) will be sent tomorrow.
The Governor plans to have a round table discussion. It is hoped that Hanscom will make the shortlist. There will be a change in command at the Air Force.
7:45 PM WORKSHOP ON SECTION 106 REVIEW
The workshop was led by Marilyn Fenollosa, a member of Lexington’s Community Preservation Committee and Historical Commission, and a former Senior Field Officer with the North East Regional office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Ms. Fenollosa gave a presentation accompanied by Power Point slides.
The context for Section 106 review is the National Historic Preservation Act, enacted in 1966 during a time of extensive urban renewal. The main features of the Act are: every state is to have a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); an Advisory Council and a National Register are created; there is a framework to create Certified Local Governments; and federal projects are to be subject to Section 106 review. The citation is 16 U.S.C. §470f.
The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service. Properties must be on it or eligible to be on it in order to be subject to Section 106 review. Copies of the list of evaluation criteria were distributed.
The kinds of federal undertakings that are covered by Section 106 Review are broadly defined to include projects, activities and programs funded in whole or in part by a federal agency or with federal financial assistance or subject to federal permitting (e.g. cell towers and airports).
Participants vary. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) participates in the most important projects. Local governments participate. Other interested parties can request to be consulting parties, and the public is always invited to comment.
For a review to take place, the project has to entail adverse effects. These tend to be things that conflict with the grounds for a property being listed. An underlying principle is that a heightened standard of care applies to federal properties. Copies of a summary of the review process were distributed.
If adverse effects are identified, responses that may be considered are to avoid, minimize or mitigate the effects. Copies of a Memorandum of Agreement that resulted from a Section 106 Review of a property in Taunton were distributed as an example. If the parties cannot agree, a senior official of the federal agency has to ask the Advisory Council to give an opinion. The federal agency decides how (if at all) to respond to the advice received.
Copies of a Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review produced by the ACHP were supplied and the organization’s website was recommended: www.achp.gov
Ms. Fenollosa also mentioned other similar review processes. The state has “Chapter 254 Review”, which is now MGL Ch. 9 §27C, plus regulations. This relates to the State Register of Historic Places, which includes local Historic Districts, sites eligible for the National Register, Historic Landmarks, and MHC-approved Conservation Restrictions.
At federal level, there is Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §303. This contains substantive provisions whereas the other types of review are only specified procedurally. It relates to transportation programs or projects requiring the use of public parkland or historic sites. The Act provides that there should be no prudent and feasible alternative and all possible planning and mitigation. Sometimes federal agencies will shape projects in advance to avoid triggering a Section 4(f) Review.
The National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347, covers major federal actions. It requires production of an Environmental Impact Report. This may be prepared concurrently with a Section 106 Review.
Ms. Fenollosa briefly discussed some examples of Section 106 Reviews:
• Central Artery, Boston. Historic buildings could have been damaged; careful design needed.
• Logan, Runway 14-32. Districts on the National Register would have been affected; mitigation measures employed.
• Nantucket Sound Wind farm. The whole island has protection status; 2004 visual impact assessment undertaken.
• St. Aidan’s Church, Brookline. On National Register due to association with JFK; archdiocese proposed redevelopment for high rise housing with HUD funding; agreement to convert building instead.
• UMass historic buildings, Amherst. Alumni initiated review process; MHC advised that some buildings were eligible for National Register; UMass tried to resist MOA.
• FB Rogers industrial building, Taunton. Agreement to document building prior to demolition for housing development.
• Shuttle America, Hanscom. Flights were established with objections but no legal challenge; expansion then considered de minimis by Massport; MHC did not concur; challenge unsuccessful in court.
• Marrett Road/ Route 2A (an earlier case). Mass Highway proposed re-routing road; MHC found no adverse effect but National Park Service objected; 4(f) process due to transportation project taking parkland; successful challenge.
Overall, Ms. Fenollosa concluded that even when projects are not stopped, there are often improvements.
A question was asked about signatories to agreements. The parties are the proposing agency, the SHPO, the Advisory Council if participating and those who have asked or been invited to participate. An option is to withhold signature.
Debbie Bier commented that notification of projects at the outset seems to be patchy.
Hangar 24 was discussed. The hangar is eligible for the National Register and will be covered by all three types of review process: Section 106, Chapter 254 and 4(f). Sara Mattes reported that an initial meeting she attended was obscure in its purpose. Ms. Fenollosa commented that there is no obligation on the proposing agency to explain and assist with the process. Massport reported that newspaper publicity has been provided by the FAA for the July 17th meeting, referring to both Section 106 and 4(f). Hangar 24 is in Concord but the other three nearby towns are involved through HATS.
Ms. Mattes asked why Bedford is designated as a Certified Local Government but the other towns are not. Ms. Fenollosa explained that obtaining CLG status is a major process and the benefits are limited. There is a degree of priority in obtaining grants, but such grants may also carry restrictions. In Massachusetts all towns receive attention on consultations.
Ms. Bier asked about the status of rail trail projects. Ms. Fenollosa considered that Chapter 254 would apply; also possibly 4(f).
The Chairman thanked Ms. Fenollosa for her informative presentation and the audience expressed its appreciation with a round of applause. The Chairman encouraged workshop attendees to participate in the July 17th meeting.
9:00 PM REPORT ON 128 CENTRAL CORRIDOR COALITION
Selectman Jeanne Krieger of Lexington reported on progress. The newly-formed group is continuing to meet and to organize itself to address traffic demands arising from development along Route 128. The four communities involved have signed a draft Memorandum of Understanding (copy attached to minutes). The coalition is being assisted by MAPC, especially Barbara Lucas.
9:15 PM MAGIC/MPO UPDATE
Richard Canale drew attention to a meeting to be held on June 30th concerning potential improvements to the Fitchburg line. This could be important to the Central Corridor Coalition, due to the overlap in respect of a possible multi-modal interchange at Route 128.
Mr. Canale also reported that the Metropolitan Planning Organization is preparing to release the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Unified Work Program (UWP). The consultation period is expected to run from early July to early August. The Town of Lexington has drafted a letter to the MPO supporting two corridor studies, Route 4/225 and Route 128. Mr. Canale reported that there may be potential to include a Route 128 central corridor study in the UWP although a full Route 128 study is considered to be beyond the budget. The transportation corridor studies are relevant to access to Hanscom and to the bid for the Cyber Command center, and Mr. Canale suggested that HATS and the Central Corridor Coalition towns might like to support them.
A MOTION was proposed by Jeanne Krieger and seconded by Mike Rosenberg, to seek approval for signature of a letter similar to Lexington’s from the four HATS towns and HATS, for submission by July 10th Passed 4-0
ACTION: towns’ selectmen and Chair
9:20 PM OTHER BUSINESS:
Massport navigation rules
Lexington’s representatives mentioned that they have encountered rules restricting the height of buildings in the Hartwell Avenue area, and suggested that a discussion of the navigation rules with Massport would be useful. This may need to cover both FAA airspace and Massport easements.
The Chairman agreed to email Dorothy Steele (and copy to others) making a request for a briefing to HATS on this topic. ACTION: Chair
Hanscom vegetation management
Massport announced that it would like to consult the towns and the public on its vegetation management plan in late July. The Chairman suggested that conservation commissions would be best placed to respond on behalf of the towns and agreed to notify them. ACTION: Chair
Meeting schedule
For its next meeting, HATS will be hosting the Hangar 24 demolition review at Bemis Hall, Bedford Road, Lincoln on July 17th.
There will be no meeting in August.
9:25 PM MINUTES
Approval of the May 22nd minutes was deferred for the receipt of comments.
A MOTION was proposed by Jeanne Krieger and seconded by Anne Shapiro, to approve the April 24th minutes as amended. Passed 4-0
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved September 25, 2008
(Draft MOU for 128 Central Corridor Coalition attached)
Draft MOU for 128 Central Corridor Coalition (6/2//08)-#6
The towns of Weston, Lincoln and Lexington and the City of Waltham recognize that traffic congestion along the 128 central corridor has the potential for denigrating the quality of life in our communities and constraining the economic vitality of our region.
Representatives from the Boards of Selectmen of Weston, Lincoln and Lexington, and the mayor of Waltham concur that a “do nothing approach” is not an option if we are to maintain an environment for economic growth in this area.
These representatives come together to form the 128 Central Corridor Coalition to seek creative ways to ensure corridor mobility, improve our capacity for sustainable economic development and infrastructure that both supports economic development and respects and protects local roadways and character.
We seek feasible measures to address the impacts of development projects' increased traffic volumes on local and state roadways. Our principle thrust will be to reduce single occupancy trips within the corridor
In partnership with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, we will advocate for a regional action plan that meets, preserves and protects the quality of life in our communities, while ensuring mobility and thus vibrant and sustainable economic development. Such actions might include:
1) Increased mass transit options along 128, including the creation of a multi-modal transit center in the corridor and HOV and dedicated Express Bus lanes;
2) The creation of a mitigation bank mechanism to help address regional impacts of development projects in the corridor;
3) A set of shared zoning bylaws to standardize traffic mitigation measures across the coalition communities.
4) Coordinated planning that weighs impacts of unrelated projects along the entire corridor.
This letter of agreement is a first step in a creative collaboration that seeks solutions and a positive direction to better ensure viable economic growth in our communities
| 
