Sept 1 CPPC - Just the facts ... not

[This post was written on Sept. 2]

CPPC seemed to expect that Clancy and/or Nitsch's Michalak would attend.  Neither showed up so the meeting was short consisting of updates and approving one minutes.  Priceless moments of hearing Leino struggling to massage the truth into pablum suitable for the public (he tends to sound tortured when doing so as I’ve learned through the years).

This is the second meeting that Clancy and Garvin (aka "town staff") skip so they’ve been missing for about 1 month.   It raises a question as to whether they are working on something behind the scenes; maybe, they are just working on Town Day.  (Recall that on June 9th’s CPPC meeting, town staff explained that they had been absent in order to keep from publicly reporting their activity which had been undermining FF’s amendment by producing the “French plan”.)

The updates fell into 4 areas: 1) soil borings status; 2) Fire Chief's concerns; 3) 7 Channing Rd; 4) MPO's upcoming TIP policy changes.

Updates:

SOIL BORINGS - will be completed next week.  Late Tuesday night, Nitsch subcontractor GZA was boring at street level near the Scarfo home (159 Alexander).   The friendly, young engineer told me that they would be doing borings next week at the intersection of Brighton and the RR.   This is pushing the date for 25% design submission to ~ November.  The drilling location may indicate where the entrance ramp of the tunnel will start.   The MBTA protested the plan to have the tunnel's mouth at the edge of the stone ballast  so the tunnel mouth has been moved closer to Channing Rd and - as Michalak said -  it will require more expensive retaining walls.

Leino said that he had not understood “all the technical explanation" included in a soil boring report  sent to him recently and that he had been interested in Clancy providing some “background" on that but since Clancy did not show  he remained clueless.   That an early report was sent to Leino may indicate that last week’s soil borings revealed soil problems. Remember that we sit on "bad" soil aka clay soil so problems with the clay and high water table would not surprising; we - abutters - have been warning the town about this.

 

FIRE DEPT SAFETY CONCERNS - Paolillo, town staff and Nitsch met with Fire Chief DeStefano (FC).  Paolillo opened up by reporting that the FC had no public safety concerns with the current BCP design.  But then, he contradicted himself by stating that the FC had concerns and that they had asked the FC to send a letter to Clancy listing his concerns that Nitsch would address in the design.  

Paolillo implied that the main issue raised by the FC was that the FC would like to be able to drive an ambulance into the underpass.   I called the FC who seemed concerned with a fire engine being able to make a 3-point turn at the Alexander entrance, with vehicle access to the tunnel and with access throughout the path.

Since I am used to the town stonewalling and the letter became a public document at this meeting, I called the FC to ask for a copy of his letter.   A very courteous, professional man, he came to the phone promptly and we had a pleasant conversation about the tracks, the BCP and safety issues. 

The FC told me he would inquire into the legality of releasing the document with the town and I told the FC that I would officially submit a form requesting the document to facilitate the release.   I assume that it was the FC asking the town that made the town release the document uncharacteristically fast.  

 The FC would like access to Channing Rd. fire hydrants from the BCP.   A fellow abutter reported that the fire hydrants are located across from 39/41 (pictured), 53, 145, 181, 247 and 307.  It means that the Fire Dept. will need permanent easements by those locations.  Looking at 39/41, I wonder if the driveway will be the easement and if that will mean that the entire strip will have to be permanently cleared of obstacles including parked cars.

 


7 CHANNING RD - CHASE BANK - Paolillo and Leino spoke with the owner of this property, E. Jammal on the phone. P/L reported that they “explained to him the process” and “he seems to understand the process”. “We talked through the plan. We talked through the process a little bit”.  P/L concluded that “he seems very willing to work with us”.

By “process" P/L mean the town’s right by eminent domain to take Jammal’s land.  It seems odd that they thought it necessary to “explain” and “talk through” the “process” to a man they know to be a real estate developer. So this may have been a little bit of strong arming. 

P/L reported that Jammal:

1. wants access to the back of his building.  This raises 2 problems for the town:  a)  the town wants to grade right up to the building making the roof level with the land so current plans don’t allow access;   b) one section of the building ( the section Stanton would like demolished) comes very close to the path. If Jammal gains access to the back of that section, then that pinches the path.

2. "questioned" whether taking the side strip diminishes the value of the lot.

3. requested a site visit with Nitsch.

P/L hope that Jammal will donate the land since he has done so in other municipalities. Jammal’s answer to that  - based on what P/L reported - was that those donations involved much larger plots white 7 Channing is small. 

My take away message:  town will have to pay handsomely for Jammal’s land or face a lawsuit.

 

 

MPO TIP POLICY CHANGES - Friedman insists that 1) the changes are “reasonable”; 2) the changes won’t affect the BCP;  3) the changes won’t happen for another year hence it won't affect - I think she believes - the 25% design plan submitted this year because it will fall under the umbrella of the current policy. 

So what's the reality?  Here's  the latest MPO TIP Policy Ad Hoc Committee  meeting that took place on Sept. 2.

The reality is that the subcommittee is going full speed ahead and today (Sept.2)  it voted to forward the recommendations to the MPO’s full Board.   The next MPO meeting is now scheduled for the 23rd (switched from the 16th due to Yom Kippur).  If everything goes smoothly, the recommendations will be approved which opens up a public comment period of 3-4 weeks.  Then, the recs come up for final vote around mid-late October.  This means that the new policies will be in place for the coming TIP year of 2023-2027 which starts in October.

Friedman is correct in only 1/3.  She is right in that the new policy recs are reasonable.  They are being tailored to stop municipalities from endlessly extracting funds from the MPO.   However, the new recs which include a cost efficiency rating would greatly diminish the BCP’s chances and, due to the transparency of the scoring, puts the MPO beyond the reach of powerful senators such as Brownsberger who has vowed to pressure the MBTA to accept the town's plan even if flawed.

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