Selectmen Write to MassDOT in Preparation for Salt Shed Meeting on January 15

Compiled by The Bedford Citizen

Writing on behalf of the Bedford Selectmen in a  January 6 letter to  Thomas J. Tinlin, Acting Co-Administrator, Chief of Operations and Maintenance MassDOT/ Highway Division, Chairman Margot Fleischman wrote:

Dear Mr. Tinlin,
I am writing on behalf of the Bedford Selectmen to express serious concerns regarding the  proposed re-location of a MassDOT salt shed facility located in Bedford on Burlington Road (Route 62) at the Route 3 interchange.

As you are aware, an initial public meeting on October 23, 2014 was not well attended, due to the failure of MassDOT to adequately notice the residential abutters. Subsequently, numerous Bedford residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed location have submitted comments and concerns to the Selectmen, as well as to State Senator Barrett and Representative Gordon.

Having reviewed the materials forwarded to the Bedford DPW by  MassDOT,  entitled “Construction of MassDOT Maintenance Facility on Route 62 (Burlington  Road),”  among  the issues the Selectmen find troubling is the assertion that the property where the facility is currently located has been deemed “surplus” since, in fact, the proposal to replicate the facility substantially contradicts this. Furthermore, we question the appropriateness  of relocating  the  facility from the east side of Route 3, where it is currently situated in the Industrial C Zone, to the proposed location on the west side of Route 3 which intrudes upon the Residential A Zone. Finally, the location of the site drive in close proximity to the signalized intersection at the off ramp of Route 3 southbound raises concerns regarding traffic congestion and safety.

In anticipation of the forthcoming meeting on January 15, 2015, the Bedford Selectmen have compiled a list of questions which we respectfully request be specifically and thoroughly addressed by MassDOT. We anticipate that many Bedford residents will raise these and other issues and wish to facilitate the most comprehensive discussion possible.

Sincerely,

Margot Fleischman

There is a 13-question appendix at the end of the letter:

1. What other locations have been considered for the facility other than the one proposed in Bedford, particularly to avoid effecting residential properties?
2. What highways (or portions thereof) will be serviced from the proposed facility in Bedford?
3. What functions are conducted on the current facility off Crosby Drive today and will operations at the proposed facility differ in any way?
4. How often will the proposed facility actually be in operation or utilized? Will the facility be strictly used for snow and ice removal/treatment conditions? How will its usage compare to that of the existing facility?
5. What will be the noise level generated by trucks and other heavy equipment operating at the facility?
6. How will the site topography change, if at all, should the new facility be built? What is the elevation of the proposed parking lot?
7. Given the presence of ledge, will blasting be required for the development of the new facility, including the proposed driveway location?
8. Is the proposed facility being designed so as to not be visible from Bedford neighborhoods including during winter months? What is the overall height of the proposed gambrel style salt barn.
9. How much light will be visible at night from the facility? What steps will be taken to ensure that light spill onto residential areas is prevented or minimized?
10. How will the design of the proposed facility in Bedford prevent runoff of dissolved salts into the Vine Brook?
11. Are there plans to store any potentially hazardous materials at the proposed facility?
12. How will salt run‐off be monitored in the ground water so as to determine the effect to the groundwater quality? Will baseline measurements be taken prior to construction of a new facility?
13. What is the schedule for developing the new facility? When would construction commence?