Westford to have land appraised

Westford to have land appraised

There are 14 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Jul 29, 2010, titled Westford to have land appraised. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

The town is "keeping its options open" when it comes to a large parcel of land off Route 40 that has become the epicenter of many recent dust-ups. The 115-acre parcel at 540 Groton Road is the root of a number of legal issues the town is currently dealing with after denying a proposal to build an asphalt manufacturing facility on the property.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

Contract Zoning

Bedford, MA

#1 Jul 29, 2010
It's call contract zoning and this is why it does not work.
asphalt me

New York, NY

#3 Jul 29, 2010
lets just go on with things.Hasn't Westford realized Newport will help the town and not hurt it.why can't Westford ask Newport for it' help on the millions it is going to cost the residents of the town in taxes to repave and fix the four corners on 110. Did the town let any residents know Newport offered to help the town on it's resurfacing around town? No just tried to make Newport look bad.Asphalt plant on rt40 will look alot better than what is there.Remember Newport is there to help a9nd in these times everyone needs help when it comes to money like your taxes.
mike westford

Westford, MA

#4 Jul 29, 2010
the westford planing board should learn how to read.The agreement between fletcher and IT should be honered.
MVG

Westford, MA

#5 Jul 29, 2010
Westford did NOT change the zoning laws, so I really don't understand why this is even in dispute.

"Light industry" is not specifically defined in the zoning bylaws, so it is open to interpretation. The 540 Groton Road LLC folks (i.e. Massimo Marino and company) don't like how it was interpreted. There's still no basis for forcing the town to buy the property.
Sun Reader

Concord, MA

#6 Jul 30, 2010
mike westford wrote:
the westford planing board should learn how to read.The agreement between fletcher and IT should be honered.
What is the appraisal going to cost us? I think we need a whole new planning board and new people in charge. You are right - they cant read.
Bullies Not Wanted

Sandwich, MA

#7 Jul 30, 2010
Our Selectmen aren't stupid. They know an aphalt plant would be a blight on our community.
These guys are just big bullies who are used to having their way. What do you do with a bully? Stand up to em!
The community stood up. Now it's the Selectmen's turn. Kudo's to them for not caving.
Elaborate For Us

United States

#8 Jul 30, 2010
Bullies how? Would you like to itemize the bullying actions that Newport and/or 540 LLC partook in?

For over a year they respectfully carried out all testing and requirements asked of them. Never once complained, and never once acted in a disrespectful manner.

They are appealing the decision, as is their legal right, just like the group opposed to them was going to, had Newports permit been approved. Just like the abutters appealed the DEP clean air permit Newport received.

Unless you are of the opinion that one party enforcing a legal contract signed by another party (the covenant) is a form of bullying.

Please instead of casting blanket uninformed aspersions, provide us with some substance.
Rt 40 neighbor

New York, NY

#9 Jul 30, 2010
"Tranchemontagne said they didn't have any idea about the zoning amendments until the denial and filed their notice within 60 days of the action. "

Lie. If they were unaware of the ammendment that defined heavy vs. light manuacturing, then why were they trying so hard to convince their opposition that asphalt manufacturing was light manufacturing. Honest to !@#$ these guys would say anything to inflict their stink and noise on their neighbors.
Elaborate For Us

United States

#10 Jul 30, 2010
1. There is no odor with the additive as has documented.

2. The facility would not be heard from the property boundries as has been documented.

3. Scott did not say they were unaware of the definition, he said they were unaware it had been amended, which in turn triggered the buy option.

What else would you like to know?
Thomas

Westford, MA

#11 Jul 30, 2010
What the report forgets to mention is that the owner of the property has 60 days to enforce the convenant WHEN the zoning changes are made that supposedly breach it... NOT when the owner just happens to notice the change 13 years later.

Plus adding a more concise definition of the already existing "light manufacturing" isn't really a zoning change anyways.

Newport = Fail
Elaborate For Us

United States

#12 Jul 30, 2010
Thomas wrote:
What the report forgets to mention is that the owner of the property has 60 days to enforce the convenant WHEN the zoning changes are made that supposedly breach it... NOT when the owner just happens to notice the change 13 years later.
Plus adding a more concise definition of the already existing "light manufacturing" isn't really a zoning change anyways.
Newport = Fail
When the added words in the new concise definition cause room for personal interpretation from the planning board, which in turn causes the denial, that is your cause.

History lesson: Newport was denied ONLY because the administrative board interpreted that they did not fit the definition of "light".

Newport was not denied because they failed any of the testing. The only denial was light manufacturing.

Do remember that the town hired peer reviewers stated that the facility did not pose a health risk. The opponents could not name ONE verified danger that the site would pose. And they hired their own toxicologist that couldn't even present one definable risk.

The light manufacturing was the only sticking point the opponents could cling to. And that is what caused the denial.

If Newport had failed even ONE test, we are not having this conversation. But they didn't.

And the owner has 60 days from the time the town violates the covenant. The covenant wasn't violated until they denied the permit, based solely on the interpretation of the amended definition.
asphalt me

New York, NY

#13 Jul 30, 2010
Newport has proven that air,odor,traffic would be safe and not a health risk to anyone.Let's look around at all other asphalt plant around the world and it doesn't look like anyone around plants are dieing or have health problems.So westford should stop being a mini Russia and just go on and stop and think the good a company like Newport would be.Lets think no Walmart no NEWPORT and just swamp.The neighbors are concerned about there health well what about all the mosquitos coming from still water on the property and look at the face lift Newport will put on this area.No more dead trees along the road it will be lit up and not that dark area along rt40.So the only ones being bullies are thepeople complaing on matter they do not even know what they are talking about. Newport has gone green do some research on the Genco plant and how envirmentaly sound this plant is.The Town board knows how quiet and clean it runs from when they went to Dracut to see the same exact plant run .Do research on asthma and polution in Dracut and it will show you there are no concerns and are very safe and green
Thomas

Westford, MA

#14 Jul 31, 2010
Elaborate For Us wrote:
<quoted text>
When the added words in the new concise definition cause room for personal interpretation from the planning board, which in turn causes the denial, that is your cause.
History lesson: Newport was denied ONLY because the administrative board interpreted that they did not fit the definition of "light".
Newport was not denied because they failed any of the testing. The only denial was light manufacturing.
Do remember that the town hired peer reviewers stated that the facility did not pose a health risk. The opponents could not name ONE verified danger that the site would pose. And they hired their own toxicologist that couldn't even present one definable risk.
The light manufacturing was the only sticking point the opponents could cling to. And that is what caused the denial.
If Newport had failed even ONE test, we are not having this conversation. But they didn't.
And the owner has 60 days from the time the town violates the covenant. The covenant wasn't violated until they denied the permit, based solely on the interpretation of the amended definition.
The change to the definition of "light manufacturing" made it more concise... as in LESS personal interpretation by the Planning Brd.
Thomas

Westford, MA

#15 Jul 31, 2010
This is a more informative story on the issue:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/westford/news/x567...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Acton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Solar-energy talks heat up Tyngsboro meeting (Jun '10) Jun 9 Mike 54
News New England's epic winter gives way to unusuall... Jun 1 goldstone report 3
News Some parents give PARCC test failing grade May '15 david Mcgeney 1
News Sheehan leaves job as Westford's assistant town... (Mar '10) May '15 townsendite 51
News Ted Nugent Suggests He's Ready For Armed Revolt... (Jan '13) May '15 Pope Out To Pasture 10
News Halton Region opens two new depots for resident... (Oct '08) Apr '15 Crawford Lake 13
News Nationwide survey gives Westford 'top 100' brag... (Apr '09) Apr '15 Just saying 33
More from around the web

Acton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Acton Mortgages