Brownsberger's Way


 

At the Town Meeting this June 7th, we heard an extraordinary exchange between Senator Will Brownsberger and Selectman Epstein (starts at 1:56:48 with Epstein talking).  Below I have a partial transcript of the exchange and a movie with the audio clip. 

For almost one year, Nitsch has published BCP 25% design plan that required the taking of 3000-4000 square feet of land (per Selectman Paolillo, TM June 7,2021) from Frank French at 40 Brighton Rd.   The town has taken the first step for seizing land (permanently or temporarily) from Mr. French and at least 40 other abutters (read the CPPC's CPA application).    Mr. French has complained that the taking would heavily impact his business but his complaints have fallen on deaf ears.   As a result, Mr. French hired attorney George McLaughlin and suddenly, in the last week or so. the town hears him.  As a result,  Nitsch has produced a new plan - unveiled last Friday - that now places the BCP entirely within the DCR easement but to do so, it must flout MBTA safety requirements requested by MBTA Assistant General Manager Jody Ray.  

(A moral of this story: an abutter's attorney is like garlic to this land-thirsting vampiric town. )

Why extraordinary? Because a State Senator is seemingly vowing that even if Nitsch is in error i.e. "misheard", even if this plan does not meet railroad safety requirements, he - Senator Will Brownsberger - will make sure that the path is built within the DCR easement even if he has to exert pressure on the Governor to intervene and override the MBTA's safety concerns.  In other words, even if the MBTA deems the 25% design plan  fatally flawed, Senator Browsberger seems bent on having the plan accepted.

Safety concerns? You bet! The new Nitsch plan shows the path brushing the tracks' stone ballasts the entire length of the property, not just by the building. It also shows Nitsch requiring temporary easement halfway up the ballast towards the rails.  Will the daily ~36 trains be able to run during this construction? What if someone drops a hammer or another tool on the rails?  

*I have spoken to the Keolis Rail Manager about this (Keolis is the MBTA's subcontractor in charge of rail maintenance).  Unlike what a CPPC member believes, the MBTA assumes that the ties have a life of 20 years.  They replace ties on a rotating basis every 2-3 years in any one section of the rail.

A lot of what we are witnessing seems to be a political game.   Senator Brownsberger may be talking tough to score political brownie points with Belmontonians.   Selectman Epstein seems suddenly far more protective of 40 Brighton St.  Why? Who knows! But the takings at 7 Channing Rd (another business) or at 5 private residences don't seem to trouble him. 

The Setup

Epstein:  as an "11th hour deus ex machina" Nitsch has now -within the last week or so - produced plans that won't require a permanent easement at 40 Brighton St*. But my concern has been clearance from the rail to the building and clearance from the crossing gate.  Nitsch claims that "a 9' separation from the tracks meets MBTA requirements" when an email from Clancy told me that the MBTA is looking for 14' clearance and there is a requirement for a path to have a 6' clearance from a crossing gate protected by a fence and the Nitsch plan shows the path crossing 1' from the crossing gate.

* French property at the east terminus of the BCP - the Nitsch plan for the last 11 months required seizing 3K-4K sq. ft of land which would badly affect French's business.

"So my question to Senator Brownsberger is: are you representing to us tonight that the 25% design submission will be entirely within the [DCR] easement and that in fact there is no possibility of a deviation of the path outside the easement and going elsewhere on the 40 Brighton St parcel?"

The Fall

Brownsberger: I am representing that number one - Nitsch has drawn this ... produced an engineering drawing that shows the path laying entirely within the easement

that I've interrogated Nitsch together with Selectman Paolillo and Mr. Clancy and Ms Garvin and Representative Rogers as to whether this is for real and asked the kind of questions that you are asking and they have represented "yeah yeah yeah it's fine. It's fine!".

So why they produced a different drawing? Apparently because they wanted additional space. They wanted a wider path. O.K. but they are not going to get  it.  They are going to get an 11' path or whatever it is which is fine, it's just fine.

As to the different things that the MBTA has said, the fact is that MBTA is not a person. The MBTA is a lot of different persons and sometimes you get lots of different answers when you talk to different people and I think that has created, in part, the confusion here.

But what I can represent to you as an elected official is that I am absolutely committed to making sure this works within the easement and, if somehow Nitsch has misheard something or someone different comes into the picture at the MBTA and says something different, I will go to the bat all the way to the Governor if need be to make sure we can keep this project moving within the easement.




The new Nitsch plan as presented at the CPPC meeting of June 9, 2021.

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