Westminster Board of Selectmen's Meetings
by Jay Shenk
December 7, 2009
Not as interesting as the last one, but interesting nevertheless
Arriving a few minutes after 7:00, and it was standing room only-- a few people standing and just two inconveniently located seats remaining. I elected to take the seat right beside the Selectmen’s table in the front, which provided a great view of the proceedings. Lorraine Emerson was proposing that the long lost but now found Boston Post Cane, given to the oldest living resident of the Town, be placed in a locked,glass case on the right wall of the Selectmen’s chambers. I don’t know why it is residing there instead of being given to the oldest living Westminster resident—perhaps the award is now symbolic, since when it was actually given away it was lost for many years.
On behalf of the 250th Anniversary Committee, chairman Lorraine Emerson also presented the Town with a signature quilt handcrafted by former Selectman Jessica Leger and other 250th memorabilia, also to be stored in a curio cabinet that will be paid for by the 250th Anniversary Committee. The gift was accepted.
Roles were also formalized on the Board, with Laila Michaud named Clerk, John Fairbanks Vice Chairman, and Nick Hay Chairman.
First up was Don Barry, who wanted to be on the Town’s Council on Aging. His appointment by the Selectmen was unanimous, but was followed by a stern warning from Selectman John Fairbanks, who first asked if there was a representative there from the COA. There wasn’t, so he addressed the room as a whole, and Don in particular, telling him that the COA had “scared off” the last 4 appointees to the Council on Aging, and he didn’t want Don to be the fifth. Don didn’t look scared.
There seemed to be three groups of people in the room—those there just because they were interested or involved in town politics, those who were abutters to the proposed train layover station, and a group there to hear about Peter Normandin’s ”revenue enhancement” proposal to buy tax certificates from the Town for delinquent taxes owed by developers, and in particular the group was attending relative to land on Rebanna Road, off of Woodland Drive.
Peter Normandin and his proposal were next on the agenda, and he quickly cleared out the third group in the room, as his proposal for revenue enhancement had nothing to do with tax certificates, but rather was a most reasonable proposal to start reissuing dump stickers, and charge a nominal fee for them, like $10, and if possible earmark that money for a senior center or something similar to benefit seniors. Peter stated that during his campaign for Selectman he’d spent a lot of time greeting people at the landfill (which elicted some chuckles), and during that time he’d noticed that around 20% of the cars didn’t have Town dump stickers, and in fact, none have been issued since 2007. Since Peter had apparently mistakenly said he had a 2008 sticker, that led to a few more jokes, this time about where he got such a sticker. In any event, it was just an idea, and the Selectmen said it would be considered by the Advisory Board, which was currently investigating budget and revenue issues for next year. There was some off-topic discussion about making sure the new stickers worked with an automated gate, that apparently isn’t currently working, and there was also some discussion about how many stickers a household could purchase, and how many each household would be charged. Overall, the idea seemed well received, and it’s estimated, as a ‘horseback guess’, that it could raise about $15,000-$20,000 annually, with the added benefit of keeping people out that are not supposed to be filling up our landfill.
It was at this point that someone in the back, speaking for a group of residents, inquired when the tax lien certificates would be discussed, and since the agenda item they were waiting for turned out to be Peter’s idea about dump stickers, rather than tax certificates relating to Rebanna Road, that contingent promptly left the meeting en masse.
Next came the heart of the meeting, which was the opportunity for residents to voice their opinions, concerns, or approval of a proposal by MART (Montachusett Regional Transit Authority) to apply for a Federal grant to both extend the Fitchburg commuter line to “Wachusett Station”, located off Authority Drive in Fitchburg, at the intersection of Routes 31 and 2; and to allow the building of a “Layover Station” in the Westminster Business Park. The Selectmen had previously signed a letter expressing support for this proposal (see letter below) but now had to respond with any concerns, environmental or otherwise, by 12/14.
The audience, including Donna Brownell from WEST (Watchdogs for an Environmentally Safe Town), were unanimously in support of the new commuter rail stop near Westminster, but close to unanimously against the layover facility. While numerous residents and Advisory Board members spoke against the layover facility, only Joe Macchia, the former Selectman candidate, spoke in favor of it. Mr. Hakala, part owner of the Westminster Business Park which would sell the land to the MBTA, and most likely pro the layover station, was expected to attend but did not.
Town Coordinator Karen Murphy and Selectman Laila Michaud had attended an informational MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) meeting held by MART, and gave a brief summary of the meeting. Basically, the grant is for $65MM, the environmental study is already underway, and there are about 1,400 other entities competing for this grant (I think there must be more than one grant or more money overall, or the odds are awfully slim). The new commuter station would be on the Fitchburg/Westminster border, while the layover yard, which would be owned and operated by the Boston MBTA, would be in the Westminster Business Park, and would consist of six fingers (spurs), each about 1,000 ft. long.
The arguments given against allowing a train layover facility in Westminster were given by many people, and are summarized below, and attributed where possible:
1. The Railroad freight company makes a bad neighbor. Westminster’s experience with the freight train company is fairly well known. They are very unresponsive, throw trash off the trains, start fires with their brakes as they come down the Westminster incline, and generally are uncooperative.
2. One resident spoke of having lived near a commuter rail layover station in another town, and how although they were only to idle five minutes, the trains idled all night, and had done so for forty years, despite all efforts to have them obey the rules. Even the commuter rail trains do what they want to do regardless of agreements.
3. The proposed layover station was said to be within “half a stone’s throw” of Crocker Pond. Bud Taylor, who spoke eloquently and the most against the layover station, had a map, and although I didn’t see the scale of miles, it looked like a close up view, and that the layover station was almost unbelievably near the Town Beach at Crocker Pond. It’s worth noting that this location near Crocker Pond is a new development, and wasn’t even the spot originally requested, which was somewhat farther away.
4. There already are layover stations in Gardner and Lunenburg (most people think it is in Leominster, it’s very close to the border) that could be used, although not as conveniently for the RR company.
5. Much of the grant is to upgrade the tracks, which someone said is already being done, and wouldn’t benefit Westminster anyway.
6. The abutters, many of whom were in attendance, were 100% against the layover station because of noise, vibrations, fumes, and being woken up every day at 5AM when the engines fired up and started on their routes.
7. Keith Harding had an especially good comment, as he pointed out that the railroad company pays no taxes, and hence about 20+% of the Westminster Business Park land would be permanently removed from the tax rolls. The Business Park, with the accompanying sand removal, was originally allowed in the hope of bringing business and the associated tax revenue to Westminster, and if the layover park were built, not only would that land be forever non-taxable, it might also make the property near it less desirable.
8. Fire Chief Brent MacAloney also expressed a number of ‘facts’ on the project, attempting to remain neutral, but one of note is that putting in this layover station would appear to cause Turnpike Road to become a dead end, and also make access to a part of town impossible in the event of an emergency when trains were parked, without more infrastructure construction to get around the layover station.
9. The yard could potentially interfere with the solar farm—perhaps because of the vibrations?
10. John Fairbanks questioned the number of cars that could park at the station, saying that 286 vehicles didn’t sound like enough to really have an impact on traffic flows, which is an argument for the project.
Joe Macchia spoke in favor of the layover station.
His points are summarized below:
1. When applying for the grant, the application for Fitchburg/Westminster might be looked upon less favorably if we appear to be uncooperative by not supporting the layover station.
2. Getting an opportunity to have a commuter train is a rare occurrence, and here we are again, turning it down.
3. WEST and Donna Brownell are consistently against everything (this didn’t seem to have much to do with this particular issue, regardless of whether it is true or not).
4. Despite a statement earlier, “all” residents aren’t against the layover station, Bud Taylor responded that he only said “all residents in this room”.
5. All of the problems with the railroad companies relate to the freight trains, not the commuter rail trains (MBTA).
6. Environmental impact shouldn’t be a concern because before the railroad can do anything they have to follow all the rules, regulations, and safety procedures, etc. required by the state and federal governments.
7. The benefit to the town is tremendous—getting a commuter line stop nearby. That will bring business to Westminster.
Next Fire Chief Brent MacAloney spoke. A complete text of his statement, which pointed out a number of facts about the project, is inserted below:
I offer the following comments relative to the proposed Wachusett Rail Station and Layover facility in Westminster. Note my comments are not specific to MEPA impact and as we were not supplied with a copy of the plans that others had we do not know if the items listed below are addressed in any documentation provided others.
Wachusett Station
• There is no detail on how 5th Mass Turnpike will be addressed with regard to traffic that utilizes it today.
o We learned from the meeting last week at the MRPC that the plan that is being proposed for the grant will shut down traffic on 5th Mass Turnpike, but will be open to emergency vehicles.
A portion of the commuter spur track will run down the center of the current 5th Mass Turnpike just over the Westminster Town Line which will require the current road bed to be raised about 4 feet to allow for the train station spur to meet the current freight rail bed based on personal observations.
• It is not clear how emergency vehicles will pass to and from Westminster to Fitchburg and back considering the rail in the middle of the road and how the elevation change will be addressed as the track merges back close to the Westminster town line.
• It was mentioned that there is no specific plan on how to manage residential traffic to and from Westminster considering the plan will close 5th Mass Turnpike. There were some loosely worded comments that indicated that they may look at opening up a right of way from Westminster’s Turnpike Road to the end of Authority Drive to allow local traffic to flow. Although not specified in the proposal that was presented at the meeting, it appears that they may be looking at property previously operated as ChemDesign. There was an emergency access road that connected Turnpike Road in Westminster to Fitchburg’s Development Road to Fitchburg’s Authority Drive.
o From information presented at the meeting the Grant application for the project does not appear to address the need for local traffic therefore cutting Westminster off from getting to Fitchburg on Turnpike Road.
From detail presented at the meeting there was no detail of how much gravel will need to be hauled in to raise 5th Mass Turnpike to allow for the commuter spur at the rail station. Therefore it is unknown if any road work for the rail spur will be required on any portion of Turnpike Road in Westminster.
The MRPC representative noted that they had planned a public meeting with the Mayor and the residents of Fitchburg regarding the closing of 5th Mass Turnpike. It was pointed out that any hearing held with residents of the area needed to include the residents of Westminster also impacted by the closure of the road. The MRPC representative agreed that they would be included.
• There were two possible locations presented for the proposed Layover Facility in Westminster at the Westminster Business Park.
o Of the two locations presented the Fire Department prefers the location in what is described as Lot 8 adjacent to the tracks as it places the spurs closest to the existing rail bed and does not have to cross Theodore Drive to the industrial park.
With only one entrance to the industrial park currently in place, crossing of Theodore Drive with the layover spur would possibly risk blocking the only entrance to the park thus delaying or hampering emergency access to other properties.
It should also be noted that regardless of location in the industrial park it would take the land off the tax base for future revenue. This proposal combined with the 40 acre solar park would reduce potential revenue to the town from possible industrial facilities that could be placed there in the future.
Since the Town of Westminster is expecting revenue from industrial park to support local government budgets in the future it is recommended that a study be performed as to the impact each of the two locations.
• The industrial park is being marketed as one of the few industrial rail locations in the State and it was not known at the meeting how freight rail access would be accomplished to allow sites in the industrial park to be connected once the commuter rail layover facility was in place.
• A study should also include impact to town revenue from the industrial park based on the two selected locations as well as impact to commercial rail connection to the industrial park, public safety access and other considerations.
Therefore the lack of definition as to the future ability for traffic to access Fitchburg on Turnpike Road, how emergency vehicles will transgress grade crossings and how 5th Mass Turnpike in Fitchburg, lack of impact analysis on how freight access will be made if the commuter rail layover facility is made, and etc are open items that could not be confirmed through the information provided at the meeting.
Regards,
Brent
Chief Brenton W. MacAloney
Westminster Fire Department
This part of the meeting ended with Laila Michaud saying perhaps we could express concern about the layover station, and then John Fairbanks taking it a step further and saying that we need to say we support the commuter station but withdraw our support for the layover station. That remark drew a round of applause, the other Selectmen agreed, and Karen Murphy will draft a letter for the Selectmen to sign.
At that point virtually everyone left the meeting, and the meeting quickly wrapped up after the Selectmen agreed to begin meeting every Monday.