"WORST": BCP's impact on abutters' properties

 


 In November 2017,  PARE Corp. published Engineer Amy Archer's Belmont Community Path (BCP) Feasibility Study with a recommended route based primarily on site understanding and public engagement (town and residents). 

The PARE FS link was available for download from the town's website and I let fellow abutter Annie know.  It was Annie who came to me later and pointed out that the downloaded FS was incomplete: eight appendices were missing and I hadn't noticed.   She also complained that she had requested several times the appendices from S. Gober- town staffer that worked with the CPPC - but, after weeks of waiting, he still had not send them.  Annie wanted my help.

That Gober was not forthcoming with the files was not surprising; it was his way as it was Wheeler's to stonewall the abutters.  I made requests by email and left voicemails for Gober becoming steadily more irritated with the habitual lack of reply.  Finally, on July 3rd, I called Gober again and left voicemail.  After hanging up, fed up, I called Ari Yogurtian and complained about Gober's evasions.  Ari told me to wait, called Gober, told him to pick up the phone and put my call through to him.   

What hoops do abutters have to jump through!

Then came the next hoop: on the phone, Gober smugly claimed that only Wheeler had access to the files and that I would have to wait until Wheeler returned after the July 4th holiday.  Knowing that Gober was jerking me around and that next week I would be stonewalled by Wheeler, I hanged up and decided to call Engineer Amy Archer and ask for the files.  I recall   it was ~11:30 am when I explained to Amy that the town i.e. Gober was stonewalling Annie and me and I asked her if she would provide the appendices.   Surprised that requests for public files were being essentially denied, Amy agreed to provide the files but she told me that first, she would contact Gober.  If he did not act within a couple of hours, Amy promised that she would send me the link to the files.  It was ~12:00 when I hanged up.

At ~1:01 pm, Gober sent me the link to the files and he also sent it to Annie the same day.

 

 

I went through the appendices and when I got to Appendix G, I understood why the town had hidden the appendices.  "Appendix G - Property Impacts" listed line after line of addresses and for most of them, under "Comment", it listed the one word "Worst".

Appalled, I called Amy to explain “WORST”; I wanted to be certain I had understood it correctly.  She explained that our properties would be THE construction road and staging area to access and build the BCP..  Access to the BCF land strip is THROUGH our backyards because the MBTA will not allow an approach from its right of way.   This all meant that our backyards would be razed to make way for trucks, materials and equipment and we would live in a construction zone for 2-3 years!   It is this awful reality that made the town's agent Gober block access to this file. 

Multiple alternate routes had been considered in the FS but most were discarded due to "fatal flaws".  A possible route along Concord Ave. had to be discarded because the town refused to consider traffic signaling at the dangerous Common St.-Concord Ave. intersection.  A route running along the south side of the tracks was discarded because the town would not allow any structure to be build adjacent to the Concord Ave. overpass. And so the PARE recommended route ran along the south side of the tracks from Brighton St to Alexander Ave. and then switched to the north side of the tracks from Alexander Ave. to Clark St.  The contingent route runs along the north side of the tracks from Brighton to Clark St.

The town protected a bridge and an intersection and wildlife paths on Snake Hill (Phase 2) but the town has no qualms planning the destruction of our backyards, the peace and security of our homes.  

Here is Appendix G. and be aware that "permanent impact" means a taking and that "easement" whether temporary or permanent is all done under EMINENT DOMAIN.

Appendix G is not a comprehensive list of all properties impacted by the BCP.  For example, 722 Pleasant St. is not listed in Appendix G.  In the Nitsch 25% design plan, the Okugawa property will be heavily impacted by the BCP and a section of the property will be "taken".  




Popular posts from this blog

The Miracle of the Sketchily Scheduled Public Hearing

I've been on hiatus fron this blog after Nitsch's submission of the 25% design plan at the end of 2021.  All that time, I've continued to observe the CPPC meetings; they have been as interesting as watching paint dry. Nitsch's Michalak seemed to avoid the CPPC but, a few times, the CPPC succeeded in having Michalak show up to give a report of ... non-progress. This was confirmed by someone with knowledge of the project within the MBTA who complained to me of how Nitsch was not delivering the necessary engineering plan although 1 year had lapsed since the request made in 2022. Engineering plan vs design sketch  My MBTA interlocutor explained that an engineering plan is different from the design plan. The latter is a sketch; the former is plan that shows location of items and structures in the subsurface and surface of the project area.  The subsurface items include pipes and cables because you don't want to start digging - for example - to build a wall and then fin...
Read more

A Tangled Web

  Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive " Abutters have asked for the engineering plan for the 25% design submittal or what Stanton called the "revised" 25% design.  Since, on January 10, Michalak (PE or Project Engineer) announced that the Public Hearing had been scheduled then this revised plan had to exist at that date.  JS requested it from MassDOT Public Records on Februaru 23 and waited and waited.  Finally around March 14-15, JS received documents: the original, unrevised 25% design submission from November 2021, ROW papers, and the bridge worksheet with a submission date of January 24. (It's a tunnel or underpass but technically it becomes a bridge).   Note that it is the original 25% not the revised design so it still has a figure indicating that the tunnel will be "jacked".   The other fun part is that the bridge worksheet was submitted on January 24th not by December 21, 2023 as Michalak had said at the Dec...
Read more

Sept 15 - CPPC: A Fog of Words

Image
 Michalak and Clancy attended.   Michalak reported. 7 Channing Rd: Jammal scheduled a site meeting and, at the last minute, cancelled.  Clancy, Michalak will schedule again. Later on, Michalak said that submitting the 25% design did not depend on meeting Jammal: "that connection/spur is in the plan”.   All they wanted is Jammal’s approval of the spur/path planned for the side of the Chase building.  But Michalak conceded that the only thing he can see changing in the 25% are the access points such as the spur.  [My guess  is that they are likely to back down when it comes to the spur.] Soil borings 1.  Borings that required Keolis/MBTA were completed last week (week of Sept 6).   2.  Two other borings to be completed by the end of this week (week of Sept 13th).  These Pleasant St borings moved away from the ROW "to reduce cost and easier access”.* *Via FOIA request, I received Nitsch-GZA-Clancy emails .  This ROW issu...
Read more