HANSCOM AREA TOWNS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held at 7:00 PM on July 17, 2008
At Bemis Hall, Lincoln
PRESENT:
Sara Mattes Lincoln BOS (Chair) Bob Cunningham Lincoln
Jeanne Krieger Lexington BOS John MacLean Lincoln
Anne Shapiro Concord BOS Paul Hill Bedford
Mike Rosenberg Bedford BOS Jon Dawes Lincoln
Richard Canale Lexington Planning Bd. Martin Wilmer Lexington
James Craig Lincoln Planning Bd. Jane Hurlacher Lincoln
Sara Arnold Massport, Hanscom Anne Frymer Lexington
Barbara Patzman Massport, Hanscom Leon Groisser Lexington
Dorothy Steele Massport, Boston Gladys Bingham Lexington
Tom Ennis Massport Harvey Bingham Lexington
Nancy Butman Concord Historical Commission Ross Bronson Lincoln
Debbie Bier Concord Historical Commission Toni Serafini Lexington
Margaret Coppe ShhAir Michael Henchman Concord
Jim Hutchinson ShhAir Walt Hollister Lincoln
Jonathan Klavens Klavens Law Group, PC Kate Henchman Concord
Anna West Winter Save Our Heritage Qian Ma Concord
Kati Winchell Save Our Heritage Judy Shi Concord
Jim Cunningham Save Our Heritage Margery Battin Lexington
Elizabeth Millar Save Our Heritage Richard Battin Lexington
Ben Olson Save Our Heritage Dan Weidman Bedford
Julian Bussgang Museum of Aerospace & Marcie Berkeley Lincoln
Technology Project Forrest Berkeley Lincoln
Lou Sideris Minuteman NHP Joyce Hogan Concord
Patrick Lally Congressman Markey’s office Douglas Detweiler Concord
Chris Keoghan Congresswoman Tsongas’ office Susan Fromin Concord
Tim Cummings State Rep Murphy’s office Gordon Woodington Lincoln
Asya Petrewsky State Rep Murphy’s office Andrew Clerkin Bedford
Jim Poage Lexington
Residents: Margaret Lidskog Concord
Lynn Bloom Concord Niklas Lidskog Concord
John Briedis Lincoln Jifeng Chen Concord
Irene Briedis Lincoln Wanda Koetz Lexington
Sue Harris Lexington Henry Francis Lincoln
Chris Harris Lexington Elizabeth Rock Lincoln
Shelley Morss Concord Joan Silverman Lincoln
Jean Horigan Lexington Richard Horigan Lexington
7:00 PM INTRODUCTION
The Chairman welcomed attendees and explained that this month’s HATS meeting incorporates a public information and comment session led by the Federal Aviation Administration, relating to a review of Massport’s proposal to demolish Hangar 24 on Virginia Road at Hanscom Field for redevelopment. The meeting is being recorded for television.
Ms Mattes introduced John Silva of the FAA.
FAA HANGAR 24 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMENT SESSION
Mr. Silva stated that the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) proposes to demolish Hangar 24, which has been found to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. This triggers reviews under both the National Historic Preservation Act,“Section 106” and the Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f). Mr. Silva invited Massport to present its proposal.
Massport Presentation
Tom Ennis of Massport introduced himself as the Project Manager working on the Hangar 24 project, and also introduced other members of Massport’s staff. He stated that this information session is not a formal public hearing.
Mr. Ennis said that although Hangar 24 is owned by Massport, the intention is that a future development on the site will be used by a third party. He gave a Power Point presentation beginning with an aerial photograph from the 2005 Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR) on which buildings and sites were labeled. He stated that Hangar 24 is the only available development site with both roadside and airside access. The site is approximately six acres. The hangar was built in 1948 and has always housed aircraft.
Mr. Ennis reviewed the timeline of events since the ESPR, including a Request For Proposals, a start to the historic review process in October 2006, notification to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) in March 2007, receipt of comments, completion of a feasibility study, and a meeting in June 2008 to begin the Section 106 Review process.
The case for demolition was outlined, including the following points:
• Hangar has been vacant for 5 years
• Too small for modern aircraft
• In poor condition
• Redevelopment could accommodate a 30,000 – 80,000 sq ft hangar with associated office space and ramp
• Consistent with Hanscom’s role as satellite facility to Logan and premier regional general aviation airport.
Mr. Ennis showed pictures of the current hangar and referred to a feasibility study by HNTB. He also referred to a previous proposal for redevelopment; this proposal is no longer active but Mr. Ennis stated that demand continues.
Massport is prepared to support a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that follows MHC guidelines, incorporating the following points:
• Employment of a consultant to document Hangar 24 prior to demolition
• Salvage of hangar elements
• Interpretive display at Hanscom Field or at a new museum if developed.
Mr. Ennis concluded that the redevelopment of the site is important to Hanscom’s mission; that the existing hangar cannot be rehabilitated; and that the Massachusetts Air and Space Museum has found it to be inadequate for its purposes.
FAA: Process
Mr. Silva clarified the fact that the Section 106/ 4(f) Review is still at an early stage. It involves a series of elements:
• The “undertaking” – this is the creation of an Airport Layout Plan designating the site for redevelopment
• Determination of the area of potential effect – the direct effect is basically just the building, although there could be wider indirect effects
• Assessment of the effect on that property and of ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate; alternatives will be assessed
• Signing of an MOA – signatories include the local towns; there could be non-concurring parties.
Mr. Silva invited questions on the process. Bedford asked what other alternatives could be considered in this case; these could potentially include alternative development sites. A question was asked about how the area of effect is decided; the regulations provide guidelines. A resident asked if any lessening of night flights at Hanscom can be expected; Mr. Silva said that the proposal is not expected to change the extent of night flying. The Chairman asked about the differences between the Section 106 Review and the 4(f) Review; there are differences in the exact wording concerning the finding/ determination that has to be made about adverse effects and alternatives.
Mr. Silva invited people to write letters to him by August 1st at 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. ACTION: Interested parties
Concord Historical Commission presentation
Nancy Butman, Chairman of the Concord Historical Commission (CHC), referred to the history of Orchard House as an example of a building that fell into disrepair at various times and was rescued by people who saw its historic significance. It is now internationally famous and a National Historic monument.
Ms. Butman said that the work that was carried out in Hangar 24 was largely secret at the time, but we have now learned that events of international importance took place there. A number of systems of widespread significance were tested and developed. Hangar 24 housed the history and if it is lost, the value that comes from the authenticity of the place will be lost. This value will increase over time.
In November 2007, Concord’s Town Meeting added Hangar 24 to its demolition delay bylaw. The CHC is unaware of any alternatives explored by Massport or the FAA. Normally, the Commission receives supporting documentation for demolition proposals. Without a specific proposal for the site, it cannot fully assess the effects or the extent of the area affected. Currently there seems to be no clear proposal except for demolition.
Ms. Butman drew attention to the rural character of Virginia Road and commented that the design of any replacement building will need to be considered carefully. There are also houses of historic importance on the road.
Copies of a web magazine article about Hangar 24 by the CHC were distributed.
US Congressmen
Chris Keoghan of Congresswoman Tsongas’ office distributed copies of a letter to the FAA signed by Congresswoman Tsongas, Congressman Tierney and Congressman Markey, urging preservation of Hangar 24 and supporting the idea of converting it into a museum. He read out a statement reiterating the points made. Patrick Lally of Congressman Markey’s office expressed support and offered apologies for non-attendance from Congressman Tierney’s office.
Local Residents
Lynn Bloom of 25 Fuller Lane, Concord spoke on behalf local residents concerning the role of Virginia Road. She said that the road is one of the oldest in the area, being the oldest route from Boston to Concord, and that it has retained its narrow and winding character. Ms. Bloom stated that the road itself is eligible for the Historic Register and is designated as a scenic byway. It is important as an appropriate access route to historic houses and in relation to the history of agriculture and open space. Ms. Bloom argued that the road is not suitable for airport access and that the road itself could be harmed by the redevelopment of Hangar 24. She pointed out that Concord is a Home Rule town and most actions require cooperation. Ms. Bloom added her opinion that the history of Hangar 24 is important and that its design is also interesting.
Bob Cunningham, a Lincoln resident and member of the company of minutemen said that he was worried about the potential increase in road and air traffic. He pointed to the importance of the Minuteman National Historic Park and to the adverse effects of existing cars and planes. He expressed the view that the state should be more protective of the Park.
Paul Hill of Bedford pointed out that the financing of air operations is becoming increasingly difficult and suggested that Massport relate its traffic projections to jet fuel cost.
A resident who has operated a plane at Hanscom and participated in aviation development projects commented that the historic hangar is interesting to see and worth preserving.
Minuteman National Historic Park
Lou Sideris represented MNHP. He stated that the National Park is less than half a mile from Hangar 24. He advocated renovating the hangar to showcase inventions by a group of local research and development organizations. He expressed concern about the effects of airport-related redevelopment upon the Battle Road Trail that runs nearby in the Park, and suggested that any airport proposal should be made in the context of a regional transportation plan.
Mr. Sideris noted that there is no clear redevelopment proposal as yet but that a previous proposal included an above-ground fuel tank which would pose a fire danger to the woods and historic buildings in the Park.
ShhAir
Margaret Coppe of Lexington spoke for ShhAir (Saving the Historic Hanscom Area’s Irreplaceable Resources). She said that the organization was opposed to Massport’s proposal on grounds of the effects it would have, its speculative nature and its environmental unsoundness. She introduced Jonathan Klavens, attorney, who commented that the project is for demolition with nothing more specific proposed, and that it seems counter-intuitive for a historic review process to be able to approve demolition with no plan for replacement development. He argued that an obvious, reasonable and practical alternative would be to propose a re-use. ShhAir believes that there have been some estimates for repair and reuse that have not been publicly scrutinized. Without a more specific proposal, he suggested that a reasonable assessment of impact could
not be made. Mr. Klavens also referred to reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and corresponding MEPA which he said discourage review of a limited phase of a project rather than the full sequence.
ShhAir stated that it wishes to be a consulting party. Mr. Silva confirmed that this is the case, although ShhAir will not necessarily be a signatory to the MOA. In response to the point raised about the nature of the project, Mr. Silva stated that the “undertaking” for the purpose of the current review is characterizing the site as a redevelopment site. He also stated that hangars are excluded from NEPA review as not representing a significant increase in the scale of airport activity, but that the National Historic Protection Act and Transportation Act do apply.
Aerospace and Technology Museum Project
Julian Bussgang of Lexington advocated for converting Hangar 24 into a museum and argued that aviation safety need not be an objection; the museum could be separated from the operational airport by a fence. He suggested that if Massport wants to seek another operator, it should first show that existing operators cannot handle the business. Mr. Bussgang alleged that the building has been deliberately neglected, with a lack of heat or protective maintenance. With regard to potential redevelopment, he said that if there was an above-ground fuel tank, and oil tankers had to drive on Virginia Road, a dangerous situation would be created.
The museum project has submitted comments and provided a handout for attendees outlining historic technical achievements at and around Hangar 24 and the status of the hangar.
Save Our Heritage presentation
Anna Winter, Executive Officer of SOH, introduced a video presentation entitled “Hangar 24, A Place to Preserve,” with five interviews of knowledgeable people. It addressed the stories of the development of inertial navigation and other key technologies that are now widely used such as collision avoidance systems and solar photovoltaic power, and the building itself. The building was described as interesting for its unusual roof configuration supported by an external truss and for some other innovative design features. It was said to need cosmetic repairs and code improvements but to be reusable at relatively low cost. Adjacent laboratory buildings and houses were also stated to be of interest for their roles in the technological developments.
State Representatives
Jay Kaufman, House Representative, said that he wished to ad his voice to support for preserving Hangar 24, along with other representatives of the HATS communities at state level. He provided copies of letters on the subject, including one to MHC. He agreed with the point put forward by various speakers that insufficient information has been offered to address the case for demolition. Mr. Kaufman concluded that while the local communities and Massport may have different perspectives, there needs to be communication. He pointed out that MNHP and other historical bodies have valid concerns and information to offer and that a conversation needs to take place, ideally towards a shared view of the future.
Mr. Silva thanked participants for their contributions. In concluding the session, he stated that the FAA has a list of consulting parties and next it needs to determine the effect, assess it and coordinate a draft course of action for agreement. The Chairman thanked attendees for their informative and civil presentations and for coping with the summer heat.
OTHER HATS BUSINESS:
MINUTES
Corrections to the May minutes were received from Lexington.
A MOTION was proposed by Jeanne Krieger and seconded by Anne Shapiro, to approve the minutes of the May meeting as corrected. Passed 4-0
MAGIC/MPO UPDATE
Richard Canale of Lexington said that the 2009-2012 TIP is expected to be released for public comment the next day with comments due around August 16th. The Unified Planning Work Program has been released and comments are due by August 5th. In the TIP, Crosby’s Corner and the Concord Rotary are important projects for the HATS communities. In the work program, several transportation studies could be important for Hanscom. Anne Shapiro reported that a recent Fitchburg rail line meeting suggested there could be some funding for related projects such as parking.
Copies of letters from Lexington and Bedford supporting inclusion of certain studies in the UPWP were circulated, together with a draft of a similar letter that could be sent by HATS if all towns support it, in line with the resolution at the last HATS meeting. Lincoln and Concord’s Boards of Selectmen will consider the matter soon, and Jeanne Krieger and Anne Shapiro will coordinate a HATS response.
Jeanne Krieger reported that she attended a hearing relating to a bridge on Route 2A, that is being replaced with state money. The new bridge will be two feet higher and will allow future widening of Route 128.
CENTRAL CORRIDOR COALITION
Sara Mattes reported that MAPC made suggestions about the Wyman Street development, including a lesser amount of parking and mitigation for any extra parking above that level. The four towns are hoping to establish a common traffic mitigation policy.
HATS MEETING SCHEDULE
There will be no HATS meeting in August.
HATS RESPONSE TO MASSPORT/ FAA HANGAR 24 REVIEW
A potential response was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved September 25, 2008
| 
