BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL ARTICLES 22, 23, & 24 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Town of Dryden, NY :: Hamlet of Varna – Community Development Plan Public Workshop Project Scoping/Issues Identification December 1, 2010.
Advertisements

WARD LAKE MASTER PLAN Public Input Workshop #1 July 14, 2011.
Medway Valley Heritage Forest Environmentally Significant Area Phase One - Conservation Master Plan Community Information Meeting July 25, :45 –
Mashpee Land Stewards Program. Goals of the Mashpee Conservation Department To protect our water resources, plant and wildlife habitat and to preserve.
Chapter 2 Analyzing the Business Case.
Article 41 Wastewater Planning Capacity Study To determine whether the Town will vote to adopt a resolution supporting the Town Manager’s allocation of.
Conservation Commissions and the Kinder Morgan Proposed Gas Pipeline PRESENTATION TO NORTHEAST MUNICIPAL GAS PIPELINE COALITION SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 MASSACHUSETTS.
Preserve Sudbury 35 ARTICLE 35 SUDBURY CITIZENS' RESOLUTION TO POSTPONE ADVANCEMENT ON THE PROPOSED BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL WHEREAS: the “Character of.
Northeast Corridor Greenway Acquisition City Council Workshop November 12, 2013.
Bring the Trail to Sudbury: Vision & Offer Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail September 22, 2011 Rail Trail Conversion Advisory Committee Meeting.
General Planning and Annexations Key principles, background and processes Dh 2005.
Northeast Corridor Greenway Acquisition – Mitigation Feasibility Study Results City Council Workshop June 24, 2014.
1 SUSTAINING AGRICULTURE: SANTA CLARA LAFCO’s EXPERIENCE August 31, 2007 CALAFCO CONFERENCE Sacramento.
DATA VISUALIZATION NEEDS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Trish Settles, AICP Principal Planner/Project.
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
Okanagan Basin Conservation Programs (SOSCP and OCCP) 80+ organizations (government and non-government) working together to achieve shared conservation.
Community-based Education K-12 students serving as a resource for meeting community needs.
Forest Plan Revision Using the 2012 Planning Rule Process Overview Steps and Expectations (I don’t know….but I’ve been told…if the horse don’t pull….you.
Consulting Trends and the Design Process. Fundamental activities conducted by consulting firms Winning work Doing work Managing work Managing business.
1 Preservation Parcels Investigation Report to the Board of County Commissioners September 19, :30 PM.
Comprehensive Planning, and Development Regulations Ohio Lake Erie Commission Best Local Land Use Practices January, 2007 Kirby Date, Countryside Program.
VIRGINIA PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCURE ACT OF 2002 (PPEA) Augusta County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, January 6, 2009.
C I T Y O F S A L E M Neighborhood South Salem March 18, 2008 PRESERVATION DISTRICT STUDY.
Southborough’s Community Preservation Act
An Appeal of a Request For a Special Use Authorization For a Solar Energy Power Plant Docket SUA Appeal of Rainbow Solar Facility.
North Eastham Wind Feasibility Study Results Brian Eastman Eastham Energy Committee Kristen Burke Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Ric O’Connell.
Open Space Residential Development Bylaw Town of Rehoboth.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESSES Citizens Capital Budget Advisory Committee Presentation November 1,
Transportation Enhancement Funds Workshop April 19, 2004 MAG Saguaro Room.
Overview of SAFETEA-LU Sections 6001, 6002, 3005, and 3006 TRB January 13, 2008 Shari Schaftlein FHWA Project Development & Environmental Review Washington,
1 The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan: A Case Study Biol. 595 Sept. 16, 2009.
ESA Conservation Master Plan Background Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA October 2, 2014 Linda McDougall Ecologist ext
Planning and Zoning Reform – Energy and the Environment.
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION TRAILS come in all shapes and sizes based on community need and vision.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Flintstone-Oldtown Planning Region Comprehensive Plan Kick-Off Meeting June 23, 2010 Insert pictures.
The WLP must be consistent with these objectives 1.maintaining or enhancing an economically valuable supply of commercial timber from the woodlot licence.
INDOT Access Management Study _________________________ Long Range Transportation Planning Section Division of Environment, Planning and Engineering INDIANA.
Transportation Enhancements Application Workshop Welcome!! October 3 & 4, 2012.
Planning and Environment Linkages: Overview and Examples TRB Workshop on Environmental Analysis January 13, 2008 Michael Culp and Rob Ritter FHWA Office.
1 Context Sensitive Design CE 453 Highway Design Iowa State University Howard R. Green Company.
Community Development Department FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT SMALL-SCALE LU-MIN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RZ-OTH
1 C E T A S Triage Presentation, Date Project Name Project location (city, county) ODOT Key Number:
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Landscape Architecture Franklin-Simpson County Greenways enhance the visual character and walkability of.
The Community Preservation Act Community Preservation Coalition.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
By Rachel Coleman.  “ The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking.
Johnson Street Bridge Replacement Project Update Governance & Priorities Committee Engineering Department July 9, 2009.
Open Space and Recreation Plan Committee Public Forum October 18, 2007.
PART I: COMMUNITY PRESERVATION Stewardship and Maintenance Christine M. Chale, Esq. Rodenhausen Chale LLP
200/768_K 0 Sustainable Growth & Development Subcommittee Report Committee for a Sustainable Emerald Coast May 17, 2007.
Why Plan? Unprecedented pressure for growth and change To identify development and preservation areas over next 20 years To recommend types of land uses.
Outdoor Heritage Fund. Established on August 1, 2013 by the Legislature. Continuing Appropriation of $20,000,000 annually from oil and gas taxes. Outdoor.
Comprehensive Plan Update. General, far-reaching vision to benefit the whole community Takes a long term view of issues Focuses on physical development.
Lancaster Open Space & Recreation Public Forum March 22, 2009.
Community Development Department FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT LU-MIN & RZ-OTH
Land & Resource Management. Why do we have protected lands?
The Fish and Game Commission has designated the states portion of the South Bay Salt Ponds an Ecological Reserve. Planning for the management of Ecological.
Canine Commons Dog Park City Council Meeting October 2, 2013 Larkspur Park & Rec Department & Public Works Department.
Weston Town Center Planning Committee Request for Funds for Concept & Feasibility Study.
Land Protection. Conservation Restriction (CR) Voluntary legal agreement that protects land forever from being developed.
Town of Harvard Conservation Commission
Kennett Township land Stewardship Initiative
Julia Kintsch, ECO-resolutions Paige Singer, Rocky Mountain Wild
Draft Transportation Element September 6, 2017
1133 Westchester Avenue, Suite N-202
Article 41 Wastewater Planning Capacity Study
Special Exception to Reduce the Required Front Yard Setback for
FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENT
Presentation transcript:

BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL ARTICLES 22, 23, & ANNUAL TOWN MEETING

2 Three Phases of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Rt. 2 Rt. 495 Rt. 20 Rt. 9 Rt. 225

3 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in Sudbury

4 History of the Bruce Freeman Trail in Sudbury 1982: Freight service suspended and EOT purchased corridor to preserve it for public uses; 1985: Rep. Bruce Freeman of Chelmsford convenes meeting of all towns from Lowell south to Sudbury to discuss the development of a rail trail connecting the communities; 1985: Sudbury staff conducts first Feasibility Study of the trail within Sudbury; 1986 Town Meeting supports the concept of a non-motorized transportation corridor; 1987: State conducts Feasibility Study of proposed Trail; 1988: Town forms first Rail Trail Committee; 1989: MA Legislature signed bill formally creating the Bruce N. Freeman Bike Trail; 1989: Sudbury completed it’s Trail Linkages Report and identified this corridor as an important non-motorized linkage to other public places; 1998: Town Meeting adopted “Character of Sudbury Statement” which emphasizes development of opportunities to protect natural resources while enjoying and appreciating nature, recreation, and our history and traditions;

5 History of the Bruce Freeman Trail in Sudbury (cont.) 2000: Sudbury’s Open Space & Recreation Plan identified the creation of new trails, walkways, bike trails, and greenways a “top three” priority (after maintaining town character and preserving wildlife habitat); 2001: “Sustainable Sudbury” Master Plan stated the need to preserve and enhance amenities within the limits of our natural resources while the preserving Town Character. Bike and walking paths were noted as one way to accomplish this goal. 2004: New Rail Trail Conversion Advisory Committee (RTCAC) formed by Selectmen; 2005: Town Meeting approves $25,000 for a new Feasibility Study; 2007: Based on recommendations from the RTCAC, Selectmen request CPA funding for a total of $145,000 for three additional studies to determine if a rail trail can meet the objectives of the above Plans.

6 Report on Feasibility Study/RTCAC 1. The RTCAC developed technical specifications for the RFP for the feasibility study 2. The firm of Fay, Spofford & Thorndike was chosen to conduct an Environmental & Engineering Assessment. 3. The assessment study was directed at a subset of the many issues presented to Town Meeting in The assessment concluded that it is feasible to convert the former rail corridor to a rail trail from an environmental and engineering perspective but also noted that additional activities are needed to determine the Town’s desire and ability to advance the rail trail project forward. 5. The RTCAC will continue to study the full set of issues set forth at the 2005 Town Meeting that were beyond the scope of the feasibility study.

7 ARTICLES 22, 23, & 24 The Selectmen are committed to investigating in a factual, logical, and public manner a trail design that fits Sudbury. Should the end result of the investigation process show that there are reasonable trail options that can address environmental, economic, and other concerns, the Selectmen will present recommendations in favor of proceeding with trail development to the voters at a subsequent Town Meeting. At this point, more information is needed and no recommendation is being made to the voters for the design and construction of a rail trail. The only request before you tonight is for limited funding to answer questions arising from the Feasibility Study.

8 ARTICLES 22, 23, & 24 To accomplish further investigation, we need to determine: 1. if the right-of-way is legally unencumbered; 2. the extent of wildlife functions and values of the right-of-way; and, 3. develop a base map of the right-of-way, including delineation of all wetland and other sensitive areas or areas with unique issues.

9 TITLE SEARCH (Article 22) -$15,000 - NEED TO HIRE SPECIAL COUNSEL - NECESSARY LEGAL EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE OWNERS AND RIGHTS -REQUIRED FOR OBTAINING A LEASE OF THE R.O.W. FROM THE STATE -TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE ANY OTHER TOWN EXPEDITURES OF FUNDS A vote in favor is NOT a vote for the rail trail

10 Four-Season WILDLIFE STUDY (Article 23) - $25,000 - TO BEGIN AFTER AN ACCEPTABLE TITLE SEARCH; - TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL REGULATION WHICH WILL BE ALTERED TO THE EXTENT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED; - REQUIRED FOR FUTURE WETLAND PERMITTING UNDER STATE and LOCAL LAW; - SCOPE OF RFP TO BE DEVELOPED BY SUBCOMMITTEE OF TOWN MANAGER, RTCAC, AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION A vote in favor is the first step to protect our valuable wildlife habitat

11 SCOPE OF WILDLIFE STUDY It is the intent of the Selectmen and Town Manager to make the most of this funding by following the DEP "Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance for Inland Wetlands" which includes the Wildlife Assessment Guidelines to use for a habitat study. This information will be required for wetland permitting in the future should the town go forward with the trail.

12 EXISTING CONDITIONS BASE MAP (Article 24) -$105,000 -TO BE COMPLETED AFTER AN ACCEPTABLE TITLE SEARCH -CONDUCT A FULL SURVEY MAP OF THE R.O.W. SHOWING: - Topography at 1’ contour intervals; - Full extent of all state and locally-regulated wetland and upland resource areas, including riverfront areas; - Drainage structures and watersheds; - State Estimated and Priority Habitat areas for rare & endangered species; - Drinking water wells and Zone II areas; - Historic landmarks and features, heritage landscapes, etc - Encroachments - Public & private road crossings A vote in favor will provide the tools on which to base future decisions

13 WHY NOW? - Necessary steps to continue the Feasibility Determination - Continues the information gathering process - Continues the MA Highway Dept. process should the Town decide to seek state and/or local funding - Provide information that will be useful to the Town officials and voters to decide whether or not the BFRT project moves ahead - Keeps the Town, not the State, in control of the project The right-of-way is owned and controlled by the Commonwealth of MA

14 -Allow further necessary investigation of the legal, engineering, and environmental issues; - Allow the Town to make decisions based on fact rather than assumption; Voting in FAVOR of Articles 22, 23 & 24 WILL

15 Obligate the Town to move forward with the design, construction, or expenditure of any additional funds for the BFRT Voting in FAVOR of Articles 22, 23 & 24 WILL NOT

16 ARTICLES 22, 23, & 24 Voting in favor of Articles 22, 23 & 24 is not a vote for a rail trail. It is a vote authorizing a responsible process for factual investigation. Any negative findings during these investigations may temporarily or permanently stop the trail. Positive findings will only allow the voters to decide if they wish to proceed to the next step.

17 Conclusion The Selectmen are committed to investigating in a factual, logical, and public manner a trail design that fits Sudbury. Should the end result of the investigation process show that there are reasonable trail options that can address environmental, economic, and other concerns, the Selectmen will present recommendations in favor of proceeding with trail development to the voters at a subsequent Town Meeting.