HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-08-HATS-minHanscom Area Towns Committee (HATS)
February 8, 2024, Meeting Minutes
Pursuant to notice duly filed with the Town Clerks of HATS member towns, the HATS meeting convened
virtually by Zoom video conference on February 8, 2024, at 7:01 pm.
Present:
Select Board Members: Mark Sandeen, Lexington Select Board and HATS Chair; Emily Mitchell, Bedford
Select Board; Linda Escobedo, Concord Select Board; Jim Hutchinson, Lincoln Select Board
Other HATS Members: Margaret Coppe, Lexington at -large; Charles Hornig, Lexington Planning Board
Member; Gary Taylor, Lincoln Planning Board Member
Guests: Christopher Eliot, HFAC Chair; Barbara Katzenberg, HFAC and Lexington Town Meeting Member;
Jessica Casserly, HAFB Public Affairs; Mark Herlihy, HAFB Public Affairs; Mike Vatalaro, Massport
Government and Community Relations; Alex Chatfield, Lincoln representative to MCAC; Jennifer Boles;
Lexie Eliot Marshall ("aoe" on Zoom); Annie's iPhone; Carol Haines; Anne Sobol; Anne & Ross Perry; Pat
Hanlon; Kaite
AGENDA
1. Welcome and Introductions
Mr. Sandeen took roll -call attendance, and noted that a 250th Anniversary celebration was occurring at
the same time, so some regular HATS attendees were at that meeting.
2. Approve Meeting Minutes from December 21, 2023
The meeting minutes were previously circulated, and amendments were incorporated. Mr. Hutchinson
moved to approve the minutes; Ms. Mitchell seconded. The minutes were approved 4-0-0 on a roll -call
vote.
3. Municipal Updates: Recent Municipal highlights, MBTA Community Status, and other initiatives
Lincoln: Mr. Hutchinson reported that Lincoln is in the middle of offering public forums on their zoning
plans in response to the MBTA Communities Act, focused on areas clustered around the town's train
station. Lincoln is actively working on the zoning bylaw changes, which will be presented to Annual
Town Meeting in March. Lincoln voters approved schematic design and budgeting costs for a $24 million
community center on the school campus, as a combined parks & recreation/CCA/human services
facility. Lincoln finished their DEI study and their climate action plan, and are currently reviewing next
steps for both initiatives.
Bedford: Ms. Mitchell reported that Bedford's Planning Board has finalized its proposed MBTA
Communities Zones, which are clustered on Great Road and Loomis St/Commercial Ave, along the 62
bus route. Bedford is working on its FY25 budget for the Annual Town Meeting on March 25. The new
fire station project is in flux, awaiting reconsideration of the design by the Historic District Commission.
Bedford recently hired Arlington's deputy chief, Jim Bailey, and its new fire chief.
Concord: Ms. Escobedo noted that Concord's response to the MBTA Communities Act is concentrated
around the town's two train stations, along with one other section of land; they are waiting to hear from
the state that those proposed zones meet the guidelines. The warrant article is designed to create an
overlay district. Public forums have not yet begun for Annual Town Meeting, which is in late April. The
ATM warrant includes around 55 articles, which include several citizen petitions asking for changes in
Town Meeting format, including remote voting and clickers for on-site tabulation. If any of these
changes are approved by ATM, they would require a home rule petition to take effect. Concord is
working with the community to seek authority to establish a stormwater enterprise fund. Lots of efforts
are being made regarding the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord; some events
have already started, with coordination from many outside parties and community groups.
Mr. Hutchinson asked which citizen petition would require a home -rule petition; Ms. Escobedo said
remote voting and clickers. The Town Moderator has proposed a study group to look at the Town
Meeting format, which has happened every ten years or so. Mr. Hutchinson noted that Weston did a
similar study not too long ago.
Lexington: Mr. Hornig reported that Lexington held its first public hearing on their proposed zoning
bylaw changes that will be brought to Annual Town Meeting. Lexington's MBTA Zoning has been in place
for almost a year, scattered around town (no train station). There's been a lot of interest from
developers, but no one has yet filed for site plan review. They are fine-tuning the MBTA Zoning
regarding inclusionary housing; they had requested an increase from 10% to 15%, but EOHLC had
rejected it. Lexington also approved Special Residential Developments (i.e., cluster -style housing),
moving from special permits to by -right and site plan review, and allowing multi -family homes. The first
project under that new zoning has been filed. Mr. Sandeen said an ATM article asks voters to approve a
parcel of land to be used for affordable housing. They have a new Affordable Housing Trust funded by
CPA funds and are soliciting RFPs for that property to be 100% affordable. Because it's a land disposition
agreement, it would require a two-thirds vote at ATM.
Lexington is doing its largest building project in a generation, of its new high school. They are now in an
intensive period of regular meetings with four different stakeholder groups. MSBA is providing
significant additional incentives for school building projects using the Specialized Code, of 3% of the
building cost, and there may be an additional 1% reimbursement from the state for meeting certain air
quality improvements. There are also federal tax credits payable direct to municipalities for employing
ground -source heat pumps and solar, so Lexington thinks they can design a Net Zero building for less
than a conventional building would cost, with potential completion in 2030. Lexington has approved two
sites for air pollution monitoring for the fire particulate emissions study that HFAC is sponsoring.
Mr. Hutchinson asked who would own the solar for the new high school. Mr. Sandeen said the
economics are better for owning the panels, rather than a power purchase agreement, but no final
decisions have been made.
4. Hanscom, Massport, and DEIR Updates & Discussion: Hanscom Air Force Base, Massport, and
related agencies and boards
HAFB: Ms. Casserly reported on the Sartain Gate renovation project, which is nearing its final stages.
They hope the project will wrap up in the spring. HAFB has a new Air Force Lifecycle Management
Center Commander, Lt. Gen. Donna Shipton, who visited the base this week to get up to speed on the
center's work and the unique status of HAFB in Massachusetts. Ms. Casserly noted that Glen Kernusky
will be deployed next month as part of his Reserves duty, so she and Mr. Herlihy will be the HATS
contacts for the next several months.
Massport: Mr. Vatalaro noted that the North Airfield developers are on the agenda for the February 20
HFAC meeting and the February 13 MCAC meeting. They will provide an overview of the project at
HFAC, including a 32 -page Powerpoint presentation. They are also planning a community meeting at
Middlesex Community College in the first week of March. The DEIR will be filed shortly after that,
around March 15. Mr. Sandeen asked if the slides could be available in advance; Mr. Vatalaro said he
would ask, but they may not be available prior to the MCAC meeting.
S. Hanscom Field Advisory Commission: Air Pollution Study & DEIR Status, Christopher Eliot, Chair,
HFAC
Mr. Eliot provided an overview of HFAC's focus issues for 2024, including the emissions study, lead
pollution, noise reports, the climate crisis, and sustainable aviation fuel. HFAC is also building a website
and engaging in outreach with MCAC, Quiet Communities, and other groups with aligned interests.
Regarding the emissions study, Prof. Neelakshi Hudda from Tufts, a Lexington resident, has identified
sites for instrument placement. It's important to collect data in the winter and prior to the issuance of
the DEIR. Phase 1 would be monitoring in the four Hanscom towns, looking for various fine particle
emissions from specific sites. Phase 2 is to conduct mobile monitoring and analyze the chemical
composition to identify airborne lead. Prof. Hudda studies ultrafine particles in particular, which have
not been widely recognized as dangerous chemicals.
The four towns have each committed funds for the study ($25,000 total). MCAC funding to match that
$25,000 has been requested, but the process to secure that funding is complicated, as MCAC comprises
35 communities, including Boston, and there has been some pushback regarding environmental justice
concerns. Lincoln has drafted an intermunicipal agreement for the four towns to authorize the study.
Mr. Eliot feels it makes sense to separate the Hanscom -area funding and the MCAC funding to cover
Phase I and Phase II, respectively, with the understanding that MCAC funding for Phase II may not arrive.
Mr. Eliot stressed that the study needs to start ASAP, to capture data from the winter and prior to the
issuance of the DEIR, as the results may factor into the towns' response to the DEIR.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that Lincoln is prepared to go forward with Phase I funding whether or not MCAC
funding is also secured. Ms. Mitchell noted that the Bedford Select Board's vote was not contingent on
MCAC Phase II funding. Mr. Sandeen said Lexington is comfortable with Lincoln drafting the
intermunicipal agreement and moving forward without Phase II funding secured. Mr. Eliot said he will
tell Tim Higgins, the Lincoln Town Manager, to forward the agreement to the other town managers.
Mr. Sandeen asked how this study interacts with the DEIR. Mr. Eliot said it is partly speculative: this kind
of study has not been done in this area. The proponents will be working with model data, so having real
data may surface conflicts between the model and actuals, and could prompt another round of
environmental review. The study will also provide baseline data, so if the project goes forward and
towns have questions or concerns about its impacts, the towns would be able to demonstrate changes
related to the project.
Mr. Hutchinson asked if the state had limits on these particles that could prompt action if those limits
were exceeded. Mr. Eliot noted the EPA just issued new regulations on some of these particles
yesterday, but it's not clear if the rules apply to airports. Mr. Sandeen said the new rules go from 12
parts per million per cubic meter to 9 on lifetime emissions, but they have not changed the short-term
spike limits, which are in the 35ppm range.
Mr. Sandeen noted that the monitoring equipment installed in Lexington is fairly small, about the size of
a small cooler. They have been deployed in several places in Lexington without significant impact.
Ms. Coppe asked Mr. Chatfield, the Lincoln representative to MCAC, to comment on the likelihood of
securing MCAC funding. Mr. Chatfield said he was not at the February 4 meeting, but he did have
correspondence with Aaron Toeffler, who did attend. Mr. Chatfield read the revised motion from the
MCAC meeting: "to authorize staff [of MCAC] to negotiate a contract in the amount of $25,000 to
support the collection of air quality data around Hanscom Field, providing it complies with all public
bidding laws and the Massport/MCAC second MOU of 2018, and to provide that in any examination of
any existing or proposed new research on air quality emissions ensures that air quality collection at
Logan airport has data collection parity with data collection at Hanscom Field." Ms. Coppe noted that
the motion did not include any mention of Worcester Airport, which Massport also owns.
Mr. Sandeen asked how long the comment period on the DEIR will be. Mr. Vatalaro said it's 30 days, and
you can ask for an extension. Mr. Vatalaro said Massport will be asking for an extension, so the
communities have as much time as possible to comment.
Mr. Eliot further noted that HFAC is very interested in the FAA Climate Action Plan. Massport has been a
leader in building green, but infrastructure emissions account for only 3% of the total. 65% of FAA's
Climate Action Plan emissions reduction comes from Sustainable Aviation Fuel, which is made from
feedstock. Mr. Eliot noted that the capital investment needed to produce SAF at scale would be
enormous. Mr. Eliot reviewed a few alternative solutions, noting that no technological solution is easy or
proven. The only solution that is certain to reduce climate impacts is flying less, which is not an option
FAA has endorsed.
Mr. Sandeen thanked Mr. Eliot for his presentation.
6. Discussion of Future Meeting Schedule & Topics
Mr. Sandeen affirmed that the next HATS meeting will be April 25. Ms. Mitchell asked if that meeting
would still be virtual; Mr. Sandeen said yes. Ms. Escobedo noted that the April meeting comes on the
heels of Concord's Annual Town Meeting, but she will do her best to attend.
Mr. Sandeen asked if a May meeting might be useful, particularly for responding to the DEIR. He
proposed May 23, which worked for a majority of members.
Mr. Sandeen noted that Ms. Monteleone has offered to give an impact on national parks for April 25.
Mr. Hutchinson requested putting the DEIR on the April agenda; Mr. Sandeen affirmed.
Ms. Escobedo asked if Mr. Eliot's slide deck can be included in the meeting minutes. Ms. Mitchell asked
that Mr. Eliot send the slides to her, to incorporate into the minutes.
Ms. Boles, a Bedford resident, asked if HAFB leadership and personnel could be invited to participate in
the emissions study. Mr. Sandeen suggested that he contact Ms. Casserly to determine the best way to
make those contacts. Mr. Eliot said he would ask Prof. Hudda if HAFB would be a logical place to install a
monitoring device.
7. Adjourn
Mr. Hutchinson moved to adjourn; Ms. Escobedo seconded. The motion carried 4-0-0 by roll -call vote.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15pm
Future meeting dates: April 25, 2024, at 7:00pm; May 23, 2024, at 7:00pm
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Mitchell
Bedford Select Board
s
}r
V
Cl)0
'it
O
E
o
L
V
0
0
0
p•�
w
�
s
Ile
N
0
Q
�
N
0
m
-
V
s
m
V
=
O
H
u
Q
U)
O
0
C)
"
(n
N
V
�ccn
Q
-
cn
_
E
°'
LL.-
w
z
U
0
r
O
V
ol
(A
r
O
E
W
L-
0
N
in
N
N
0
0
0
O
A
4-+
CCf
O
0-
E
_U)
m
.U)
W
_0
N
Q
Z
N
N
O
4—
4-0
cn
tU
A,
N
CCf
CCf
4-0
U)
I—
O
N
N
0
N
4-0
0
tf
O
N
4-0
CCf
5
U)
N
TIO
m
x
LU
O
0- 0
U)
u) E
U)
a)
0
.+-a 0
If
0
-o
<
E
0
0
U)
C:
co
0—
a)
c:
>
C:
0)
.C:
L-
0 0
:=
c:
0
E
E
0
E vi
Ua)c:
0
_0 MC: L- CoL-
4-4
0 0) C:
-0
C:
0
L)
U)
co a) -0
-f-j co
x
a)
O
CU
4-4
L-
0
0
4-4
c
0
0U)
0-
E
0
U
E
a)
-C
-C
N
cu
c
M
co
ME
O
U
(6
(6
a)
E
E
O
U
U
Q
U
LO
co
cm
0
E
m
O
m
O
cm
a)
C
cn a =3>) E
O O
-SU
O
cn
O
m
E
O
U
cn
(6
a_
N
N
co
N
0
LL
a)
LIJ
Q
U
cn
a)
cn
c�
4—
E
O
U
cn
m
no
O
.
LO
N
•�
V
�_
v
y
�
O
O
O
V
a
V
o
•
U.
E
O
y.+
L
•�
��'
0
tm
o
0
•�
vCo
ca
0
.w4
M
'-
a�
ca
O
Vr-�
Q
�t5lot
��o:o
0
O
*a
CL
a
o�E����
r
O
rig
Q
C!)
E
0
_
0
M
`J+ N
aJ O
i Y!
u) E
Q 0
F- O
Q
C �
Mo
0 47 Q
Q t lC
0 3�
a
N M
y �Ag
Q G
@.2 —o
G
09tl�i
RO Q V
L 0 d
cNul
Z _
O
G 7
5-2
om c
Mu u
m
cn
W
cn
O
n
U
0 0 0
LO m co
CO � T-
0
co
-6
A
(D
N
4-
60-
_0
U)
I
(D
C:
0
0
M CO
(D
0
0
(D
-0
_0 (D
LL
(D
4-0
(D
<
I
0
4—
0
U)
U)
(D
CL cn
0
(D
>
0 C:0
>
4-j
0
4-0
0
E
0m
0—
U)
4-j
4-a
-1--a
E
4-j
-0
N
0
OC6
4-j
0
0
-F-a
a) -0
a)
m
00
70
>
a)
0
a)
4-a
(n
C:
4-j
E
0
0
C:
0
N
�70
E
(n
0
cn
:3
0
a)
-
- I
>
cn
E
0
C:
0
:zz
U
p
CO
a)
0 U)
v
(D
N a) (D
ry
eq, (D IE5
U
O
�
O
N
CL
E
r-
�
cn
N
O
'>
cn
cn
(6
cn0
C)
LO
s
o
0
V>I
o
Q
a)
3
E
.-
0
o
_
a,
o
D
m
o
u
U-
a))
Qo
<o
=
U
—
V
cn
�
.
■
m
13
L
3
0
x
Q
m
CCS m
.cn C:
x O
Co
CCS
ti
M Cll
ti �
Co
O
m
Am
U
0
O
O
cn
M�
0
ca
E
11U
lklll
U
.,.r
co
N_
•U
N
co
}'
U
-t
>.
O
N
.co
•�
O
N
O_
co
-0
'Co
Q
m
E
m
C:
N
O
(D
Q
0
coN
co
O
0
O
N
.E
�
■�
N
N
m
O
N
O
�
cn
+r
.�
O
Q
N
C:cn
L
._
Z7
O
U
N
J
lklll
U
U) -C
4-1 (1)
C) >
_0 U)
cn
cn 0 0
_0 E
cn
_0
C: 0)
m .T c
-70 0
C: E
0 ca
}, 0 2
0--a
0 70
76 E >
cn
E _2
cn
N 0)cn
C:L 4-1
0 y E
C: (n cn
> 0 (n
0-0 0 C:
-0 C: 0) 0
C: c
0
'E
cn
E
C:
-0<
cn 0 70 0
Cli U) c
> E
(1) 0 0
C)
> C)
0) c:
0 0 O)C)
0
M M C) -o m
0 -r-
O C: > C)
(3) .0
> 70 0-
E
om 4-
00 4 Z
cCi I—
I
I
V--
Ml