The Town of Andover has added additional confusion and expense to the Special Town Meeting process by distributing an additional “map” to certain residents marking extensive red areas in the town where construction or maintenance would be restricted by the articles.
The letter conveys several misunderstandings about Friends of Haggetts’ Pond intent with regard to these bylaws, as well as how they will actually appear after amendment of these bylaws. We address these below.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Proposed Bylaws Changes
Will your bylaw changes prevent the town from maintaining public roads, grounds and other accommodiations?
The intention is not to prevent the maintenance of existing or reasonable future public transportation and infrastructure. The intention is to prevent paving in Priority 1 areas which are within 50 feet of Haggetts Pond and nearby water sources. See the map below – the green areas are the only areas where paving will be restricted. These Priority 1 areas immediately border our water supply where paving or mistakes resulting thereof would have the most impact. We will be proposing amendments at the Special Town Meeting to clarify this (click here to read them).
Why are you pursuing changes to the bylaws? Isn’t that drastic?
The public only became aware of the exact plans late in the summer of 2023. The design was presented as a “done deal.” Friends of Haggetts Pond and numerous residents acting in an independent capacity lobbied the town to reconsider the design plan and location. Others requested reopening the design process to include more residents’ input. The town held performative meetings and “heard” residents, but did not adjust the plans to address feedback. Realizing that the town intended to pursue this project without fully engaging with residents to seek compromise solutions and believing that our system of town government is based on principles of representation and inclusion, we concluded that the only option we had to was to propose By-Law changes in order to force the issue to a vote.
We hope you share these beliefs and concerns. Please join us in expressing them March 11 at 7 PM at the Collins Center.
Isn’t this just about Haggetts Pond and the proposed asphalt multi-use path? Why not seek a vote just on that project?
Based on the Town Meeting form of government in Massachusetts that the Town of Andover has adopted, residents’ voting rights are limited to:
- Electing the Select Board, which in turn selects and hire the town’s Managers
- Approving the annual budget (and any amendments)
- Approving changes to the By-Laws.
Normally, residents could influence the outcome of specific projects such as the proposed asphalt paved multi-use path at Haggetts Pond by rejecting a budget for it at the Annual Town Meeting.
The Managers, with the consent of the Select Board have instead decided to allocate ARPA funds granted to the town under the federal American Recovery Act, which the town has decided to not subject to resident input. These funds were needed as matching funds needed for the Masstrails grant, and an additional $950,000 has been transferred to the Parks & Recreation budget to complete the project after the portion for which the grant was obtained.
Isn’t this just a NIMBY issue for abutters?
Water quality is a legitimate town-wide concern. Our water infrastructure has shown problems in recent years and although quality has been better than other communities, it is not optimal given elevated PFAS levels in the last report. Current PFAS levels are 20 ppt which as at the edge of what is acceptable. More concerning, the trend is headed in the wrong direction since PFAS levels were 14.6 in 2016. Until we can grapple with our existing challenges, including this trend, Friends of Haggetts Pond sees to need to continue to pile on risk with regard to our drinking water supply. Lets pause, take a breath, and tread lightly when it comes to construction around our drinking water supply.
Bigger issues that should also concern any resident interested in transparent and representative governance include:
1. The short time frame for public input and the lack of true engagement and compromise on this project
2. Misrepresentations by the town about the ADA compliance of the trail and the claims that the Haggetts pond trail, specifically, is the only or the best option
3. The appropriateness of how the town has been using ARPA funds, without community input (a requirement in the legislation) to bypass the normal appropriate process and citizen vote conducted at annual town meetings.
Why couldn't you wait until the annual town meeting and avoid the time and expense of a Special Town Meeting?
The Masstrails funding requires that construction on the first part of the project complete by June 30, 2024. The project start has been delayed due to no fault of Friends of Haggetts Pond – the project planners failed to forsee how the deficiencies in their plan would result in push back from the state’s Energy and Environental Affairs Department. Still, there is a chance that the project may receive all of the necessary approvals at any time, in which case (based on the town’s conduct) we fully anticipate the town to commence construction immediately. Since the annual town meeting is close to said deadline of June 30, time is of the essence and a Special Town Meeting is warranted for all parties.
Is it true that the Special Town Meeting will cost taxpayers $50,000?
Friends of Haggetts Pond sought to engage the town by vocalizing our concerns at various board and committee meeting, e-mails, social media. In private meetings and conversations we asked for modifications. The town, notably Mike Lindstrom, the Assistant Manager, and Janet Nicosia, the Project Manager, refused our suggestions and insisted on proceeding with the project as they had envisioned it. While the town did request BSC Design Group modify the designs in November, 2023, this was primarily in respond to the feedback received by the Commonwealths’ Energy & Environmental Affairs Department and not a result of “listening” to residents.
As far as the actual cost, that is something that the town has control over and can minimize, if it chooses to!
First, the town could have adopted a more representative design process in the first place. Residents do not rise up to protest government actions when they are heard. Second, some costs for sure are required like the publication and distribution of the Finance Committee reports. Others, like distributing extra communications to scare residents in the Watershed Protection Overlay District, producing videos, and so forth are questionably. All of this time and expense was avoidable if the town simply adopted a different attitude toward resident concerns.
In a democratic town meeting form of government, the town should not spending money on PR campaigns to take a position against its residents – it should listen to what residents want and act accordingly. Its purpose is represent us all, equally, and not to favor one group or another.