Town's NIMBY

 

At the Sept 29 CPPC meeting, "Friedman pointed out that there is “a bunch of construction beginning on Pleasant St.” and that the "businesses and such" there must be made aware that they will have to accommodate the BCP coming through. 

Checking the Planning Board site shows that there are two applications pending from businesses along Pleasant St.  One is to turn Lenny's garage into a Mint Dispensary but this does not seem to alter the current footprint.   However, the other is a complete revamping of the Subaru dealership property which includes a new 3-story building.

Information from a local source reveals that 2 additional businesses are planning construction within their property.

Friedman's was a surprising statement that revealed that the BCP Phase 2 plan is for it to run south of Pleasant St, in back of the businesses there.  Surprising because this is not one of the Pare feasibility study's potential routes.  In other words, the Pare engineer did not see it as feasible but here we are, it is the new BCP route.

 

Pare Feasibility Study proposed routes (turquoise lines) paralleling Pleasant St.  Note that the routes never run north of the tracks in back of the businesses there.

By switching to the north side of the tracks, the town is shooing the BCP away from its own backyard: the recommended route run along the back of the DPW and on Housing Authority land. 

The switch happened recently. On May 5th, the CPPC was talking of the need to demolish 104 Clark Lane, a home for disabled individuals.  And now, suddenly, the CPPC has switched to the other side of the tracks to a non-recommended route.   Basically, this means the town is now "winging it', charting its own path.   Why? Why the change from south to north of the tracks? Who does it benefit? Who or what prompted the change?  Considering the behavior by the town and Senator Brownsberger regarding the French-Mahoney stretch of the path, it also raises the question: how safe will it be? 

UPDATE 

On October 5, I emailed Clancy to ask for the new Phase 2 plan.
"Friedman signaled at the last CPPC meeting that the route is now shifted on the north side of the tracks; path is now running in back of Flett, etc.  Where can I find the current Phase 2 plan?"
On October 12, Clancy replied  (I was surprised I had an reply at all considering the town's track record):
"There is no new information regarding Phase 2 of the path project. The PARE final concept report is the only thing I am aware of.   I have copied in Bonne in case she wants to clarify her comments at the next meeting (10/13)."

Friedman did not clarify her comment at the Oct. 13 meeting. 
 

Uhmmm ... so is the CPPC's Vice-Chair Friedman clueless as to the path's future location yet demanding that local businesses make plans now to accommodate this non-existing route?  Or is the director of Community Development Clancy being left out of the loop? Whichever, it suggests people in power may be making ignorant decisions that have great impact on others.


 

 

 

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