Concord Journal
August 4, 2005

Letters look to halt deal

By Barbara Forster/ Correspondent

Letters and more letters are on their way to Massport, Gov. Mitt
Romney, and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

In a special concurrent meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 2, the Hanscom Field
Advisory Commission and the Hanscom Area Towns Selectmen voted, albeit not
always unanimously, to fire off several missives recommending an
environmental review of a proposed project at Hanscom Field.

The project under the microscope is Crosspoint, an affiliate of Eastern
Development, LLC, which is negotiating a lease with Massport for the former
MIT facility, also known as Hangar 24. The facility would include a
60,000-square-foot hangar with 18,000 square feet of office space, and
13,000 square feet of aviation-related space along with 100 parking spaces.

"The letter (to Massport) is so that the chairman knows we have
multiple concerns regarding the scope and the impact of the project," said
Anne Shapiro of Concord and HFAC chairman. "Our focus is the lease."

The commission recommends that the lease not be signed as expected on
Aug. 5 and asks for environmental studies on potential impacts of the
project.

The commission also plans to ask the state for an environmental study.

The state will receive a similar request from HATS, which also plans to
remind the governor of his desires to limit growth at the civilian air field
and include a statement with 68 signatures of residents who live in the area
surrounding the proposed facility.

Regardless of the signatures on the letters, each one stresses two
points. First, the project should not proceed without environmental review
because it is a new use in a new area at Hanscom and has not been studied in
any planning documents. Second, the use is one, that according to state
regulations, requires a "full environmental review."

According to MEPA regulations, new terminals require an Environmental
Notification Form and an Environmental Impact Report. Expansion plans
require only notification.

-- Not everyone agreed

HFAC member John Williams, who represents the Business Aviation
Association, opposed the commission's position and disagreed with the
definition of the proposed Crosspoint facility as a terminal because the
company would do business is a Fixed Base Operator.

Tom Hirsch seconded the statement.

"This (Crosspoint) is no different than the kind of terminal Signature
has," he said.

But Richard Canale, co-chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee,
argued that while Jet Aviation and Signature are also terminals they are
located within an area Massport has already designated as a "Terminal Area."
Passenger services are "new" to the Pine Hill area, where the Crosspoint
hangar is proposed, so the facility "qualifies" as a new terminal.

Williams also pointed out that HFAC raised no objections to the
requests for proposals, which included possibilities like Crosspoint.

Although Canale conceded the point, he said, "We did look at the RFP
but we assumed the range would be constrained by what Massport said in the
planning concepts for Pine Hill."

Canale added that objections were raised after comparing Crosspoint's
proposal to those concepts.

Ford von Weise of the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association, who
considers Crosspoint as a positive agent for competition, was also against
the decision.

"Hanscom is extraordinarily unfriendly to small aircraft," he said,
"and this proposed facility is for smaller aircraft. Larger aircraft will
be served but they plan to compete in regard to service and (fuel) price.

"I truly believe this proposal helps the small guy," he added. "It's as
simple as that."

-- Reasons to review

Several arguments for an environmental review were outlined in a report
prepared by Canale and Julian Bussgang, also a co-chairman of the
Environmental Subcommittee. In addition to the conclusion that Crosspoint is
a new terminal facility in a new area and that no environmental studies were
ever conducted, the report notes that the project will have significant
environmental impacts detrimental to the abutting Minute Man National
Historical Park and other nationally significant historical assets of the
abutting communities.

Furthermore, the project would use Virginia Road access for the first
time for passenger traffic and other aviation-related activities. The report
states that abutters have not been notified of the proposed project.

© Copyright of CNC and Herald Interactive Advertising Systems
==========
**NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========