On the 25th of this month, there will another meeting focused upon the RiverPlace development. I urge each of you to take the time and attend as it promises to be eye-opening. Probably more so than the previous meeting as each of our Planning Board members took the microphone and logically, professionally and eloquently explained their concerns and focused upon a way ahead. I was amazed beyond belief actually, as this was not the same theme I picked up at a previous meeting. In fact, I was so appalled at that meeting I took pen to paper and demeaned many of the comments I heard and attributed most of them to Sue Ellen Quinlan. I, in fact, called her out in my letter to the Editor I was so incensed by her comments. After listening to her at the last meeting, I must apologize as she was, yet again, vocal, but nevertheless, accurate, informed and had the residents of Hudson in mind. I had planned to make this apology publicly on the 25th but will be unable to attend thus I elected this letter to the Editor.
I would like to make a couple of points regarding the last meeting. I would request that none of the board members recuse themselves at any time now or in the future. I witnessed and heard from each of them during the last meeting and saw nothing to warrant this position. I felt it extremely presumptuous of the W/S attorney to request that Mr. Cole recuse himself. I feel the board members, while having personal opinions (could we really think that would be impossible), more than adequately restrained those opinions, and have adequately expressed the resident’s concerns. I would request that the chairman continue to rebuff these requests. I found them offensive, as I know others around me did also. It amounts to a lack of respect to our board in that they might not render due diligence and thus, tender slanted decisions. I don’t see that happening – at least not at this juncture.
Focusing upon traffic, as that what was decided upon, for the 25th. I have a problem with the decision of the Sagamore on/off ramp serving only the westbound. This decision is forcing exits/entrances onto and off of Lowell Road (3A). Cutting through more wetlands and dumping traffic into neighborhoods. Why? Can someone ask why we can’t have east and westbound traffic at the Sagamore interchange please? To me, it makes sense that a multi-lane road that the developer plans would merge with another multi-lane road (Sagamore) and not a single lane road (3A). The answer that there is not enough room is not, in my opinion, a good answer. I would suggest the monkey then be placed squarely back upon W/S and require them to change design – not for the residents “to suck it up” and be deluged with “their” traffic. I would submit that if the developer is hard over on this – how about we have them use 3A exclusively during the construction phases and see if they want to use that exit and entry. How about we see what happens to our infrastructure of roads and have the developer maintain and fix them due to the increased wear and tear. After a few hundred trucks sit in traffic trying to get and out of the development, well, that might raise a few eyebrows. Just a thought.
And then, there is the daunting task of the developer explaining to the Board how 2 goes into 1. What I mean here is that internally to the project there is a four-lane boulevard (two each way with turn lanes) which serves as a perimeter or access road to the smaller roads within the project to insure cars can get into and out of parking lots and the project itself. The problem arises, as we all see it, is when we try to exit from two lanes to one lane. Their answer will be that the left lane turns left and the right lane turns right. What doesn’t get answered here is what happens during peak times. What happens after that first turn and what light do you hit next? In short – “they” have a plan inside their development – it’s clearly up to us to worry about the outside (which is our Town, in case I have been too verbose) and the gridlock that seems obvious outside the project.
In summary – thanks to the board – it seems that we citizens do, in fact, have representation. It also seems that those few rows of “experts” have not influenced your due diligence. Please stay the course for us all … if the project is worth doing, it’s worth doing well, and your “peel the onion” approach is exactly what is called for. Along with public input, of course. Please don’t stifle that. I believe we have maintained decorum so far, and that’s what’s required with this effort.
At some point, it would be nice to have a representative from the state, the Conservation Commission, and the EPA address us at one of these meetings. Nice to put a face as to who really is making the decisions. Sometimes it leads to better answers.
© Copyright 2007
Hudson-Litchfield News - April 20,
2007