:'< .'l'0Rn:00 

:.;:.: 

.;... ~ - y 0 "J' f- tn . . . . . . ;; , 

• . I'J:::B 23 . "\ 

OFFICE ADDRESS 

I 25 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

April 9, 2015 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire, A.A. E. , ACE, Airport Manager 

Federal Aviation Administration 

New England Region, Airports Division 

Attn: Bryon H. Rakoff, Manager of Planning and Program Branch 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 0 1803 

MAILING ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

RE: Request for Release of Surplus Airport Property (Auto Storage Lot) for Non-Aeronautical 

Use, Per Recent Land Development Analysis 

Dear Bryon: 

As you know, your January 9, 2015 letter (Attachment B) was in response to a request by the Norwood 

Airport Commission (NAC) for a release of surplus Norwood Airport property for non-aeronautical use. 

This, I had formalized three years ago in a letter with supporting documentation, dated March 8, 2012. In 

your subsequent January 91

h letter, you stated: "Before agreeing to release this parcel of land, the FAA 

expects the Town of Norwood to make every effort to develop this parcel of aeronautical property for the 

benefit of civil aviation, to address the lack of available ramp space at Norwood Memorial Airport." 

Following receipt of your letter, the NAC tasked its Senior Program Manager for Engineering, Jeff Adler, 

of DuBois & King (D&K), as well as D&K's consultant, Epsilon Associates-specifically, Senior 

Scientist, Alyssa Jacobs-to perform a land development analysis pertinent to the subject property. 

Two weeks ago, Mr. Adler forwarded to us the findings of his study (Attachment C) along with Ms. 

Jacobs' supporting memorandum (Attachment D). In a closing statement, Mr. Adler concluded ''that 

development of this parcel for additional (aeronautical use) ramp space is not possible under applicable 

environmental regulations." His rationale, which is supported by Ms. Jacobs, is that the subject property 

(the auto storage lot) cannot be accessed from existing airport property without filling in greater than 

5,000 square feet of wetlands, while avoiding the existing compensatory flood storage area noted in the 

existing conditions plan (Attachment E). 

As first noted in my March 8, 2012 correspondence to FAA, the subject property is a virtual island 

segregated on all sides. From the Norwood Airport's aeronautical use property, to the subject property 

Phone: (78 1) 255-5616 I Fax: (781) 255-5617 I rmaguire@norwoodrna.gov 
(shown as blue-hatched in Attachment E), there are intervening properties, all of which are incompatibly 

suited to our needs for access. These include: 

1. Wetlands, to the north, south and east; 

2. Compensatory flood storage, to the east; 

3. A public road, to the west; 

4. Privately held real estate, to the west (Noreen Michienze lot and Access Road Assoc. lot); 

5. Privately held real estate, to the south (Vincent Michienze lot) 

Additionally, while we understand that our 2007 Norwood Airport master plan cites possible 

development of the subject property for a heli-pad, that development has always been conditional to the 

NAC acquiring the Noreen Michienzie lot as well as the Access Road Assoc. lot. Without these 

properties, the master plan recommendations can never be realized. 

It should furthermore be noted that, in recent years, due to burgeoning helicopter interests and requests 

relative to the Norwood Airport's north quadrant, the NAC- with FAA support-was able to reconfigure the northernmost portion of the north/south taxi-lane. We converted this to a helicopter 

operating area with four newly constructed and marked heli-pads. This development now provides the 

Norwood Airport with more than adequate rotary-wing facilities, which, in turn, effectively negates the 

need for yet another heli-pad, either on or adjacent to the subject property. 

In closing, given the prohibitive environmental constraints noted in the Adler/Jacobs land development 

analysis, combined with the disposition of the intervening properties, each of which is incompatibly 

suited to our needs for access, the NAC is once again requesting that the FAA consider releasing the 

subject property for non-aeronautical use. 

Please feel free to contact me with any of your questions. Thank you. 

Respectfully submitted, 

(~ /fV} ~ 

Norwood 

Russ Maguire, 

Memorial 

ManageAirport ~ 

Cc: Norwood Airport Commission; DuBois & King; Epsilon Associates 

Attachments: 

• 1/22115 letter from R. Maguire to B. Rakoff 

• 119/ 15 letter from B. Rakoffto R. Maguire 

• 3/31/15 letter from J. Adler, of DuBois & King, to R. Maguire 

• 3/31115 supporting memorandum from A. Jacobs, of Epsilon Associates, toR. Maguire 

• 2/26/ 15 existing conditions site plan of the Norwood Airport and subject property (shown as bluehatched in plan) 
ATTACHMENT A 
Cfhc 'rC,\\-' N fbl~ N~t It \\ ~J~» It 

Commonwealth of Massachu se tts ;...._ _______ "·------·---- ·---·-··- -··-···-···· - · 

OFFICE ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

January 22,2015 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

Russ Maguire, A.A. E., ACE, Airport Manager 

Federal Aviation Administration 

New England Region, Airports Division 

Attn: Bryon H. Rakoff, Manager of Planning and Program Branch 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803 

RE: Response to FAA Letter Dated January 9, 2015 

Dear Bryon: 

MAILING ADDRESS 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Please be advised that your letter, dated January 9, 2015 (attached), has been received. As you know, this 

letter was in response to a request by the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) for a release of surplus 

Norwood Airport property for non-aeronautical use; and this, I formalized in a letter, with supporting 

documentation, dated March 8, 2012. 

Your January 9th response letter has since been forwarded to the NAC's Acting Chairman, Mark Ryan. 

In the second to last paragraph of your letter, you state: "Before agreeing to release this parcel of land, the 

FAA expects the Town of Norwood to make every effort to develop this parcel of aeronautical property 

for the benefit of civil aviation, to address the lack of available ramp space at Norwood Memorial 

Airport." 

I've shared this letter-specifically, this paragraph-with the NAC's Senior Program Manager for 

Engineering, Jeff Adler, of DuBois & King. I believe Mr. Adler's intent is to also bring in our subconsultant, Epsilon Associates, of Maynard, MA. Epsilon's Senior Scientist, Alyssa Jacobs, has been 

working at OWD for some time, so she's familiar with all applicable environmental concerns and 

compliance issues here, particularly with regard to development interests. 

In the next month or two, through Mr. Adler and/or Ms. Jacobs, the NAC expects to receive a third party 

land development analysis pertinent to the parcel in question. This in tum will be shared with FAA. 

If you have any questions or need to get in touch with me directly, I can best be reached by cell phone at: 

(781) 603-5373 . 

Thank you, Bryon. 

Phone: (781) 25 5-5616 I Fax: ( 81) 255-561 I rmaguire@norwoodma.gov 
Sincerely, 

~~ ' Russ Maguire, Mana~ Norwood Memorial Airport 

CC: Norwood Airport Commission; Norwood Town Counsel; Jeff Adler, DuBois & King 
ATTACHMENT B 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 9, 2015 

Mr. Russ Maguire, A.A.E. 

Airport Manager 

New England Region 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Dear Mr. Maguire: 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803 

On March 8, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received a request for release of 

surplus airport property for non-aeronautical land use by the Town ofNorwood Airport 

Commission (Town). This letter was a follow up to another letter that the Town submitted to the 

FAA on March 15, 2010. This letter is the FAA determination on the Town's request. 

Per FAA policy, any evaluation of a change of land use requires that the total impact of a 

proposal be considered on the net benefit to be derived by civil aviation and the compatibility of 

the proposal with the needs of civil aviation, including the balance of benefits to aeronautical 

users relative to the public at large. 

The FAA is aware that this parcel of property is currently rented at non-aeronautical fair market 

value for vehicle parking . .The FAA also understands that there has been some interest in leasing 

this property for aeronautical development. Finally, during the FAA land use inspection, the 

airport had been described by airport officials as having little or minimal available ramp space. 

Based on this information, and FAA policy, we do not agree with the Town. We find that civil 

aviation will receive no benefit from changing this parcel's designation from aeronautical to nonaeronautical land use. Therefore, this request is denied at this time. . ... 

Before agreeing to release this parcel of land, the FAA expects the Town ofNorwood to make 

every effort to develop this parcel of aeronautical property for the benefit of civil aviation, to 

address the lack of available aircraft ramp space at Norwood Memorial Airport. 

If you have any questions, please contact Thomas Vick, FAA New England Compliance 

Specialist, at (202) 267-8725. 

Sincerely, 

IST~f:,_ttll, ~!L. Mary T. Walsh 

Manager, Airports Division 
ATTACHMENT C 
ENGINEERING • PLANNING • DEVELOPMENT • MANAGEMENT 

March 31, 2015 

Mr. Russ Maguire, Airport Manager 

Norwood Memorial Airport 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

SUBJECT: 

Dear Russ: 

Surplus Property 

Parking Area 

We have completed our review of the surplus property owned by the airport and leased to David Spiegel 

and subleased to Verizon for vehicle parking. We understand based on a letter from FAA to the airport 

(dated January 9, 2015), that "FAA expects the Town of Norwood to make every effort to develop this 

parcel of aeronautical property for the benefit of civil aviation, to address the lack of available ramp 

space at Norwood Memorial Airport." 

Based on our review, it is not possible to access this property from the existing apron or the 

North/South Taxi lane without filling in greater than 5,000 s.f. of wetlands while avoiding the existing 

compensatory flood storage area (see attached memo from Epsilon Assoc.). Given these facts, it is a 

virtual certainty that obtaining a variance from MassDEP would not be possible for development 

purposes without a public interest of safety. Therefore, it is our opinion that development of this parcel 

for additional ramp space is not possible under applicable environmental regulations. 

If you should have any questions or comments, please call me. 

Very truly yours, 

DuBOIS & KING, INC. 

Senior Project 

~ Manager 

JAA/js 

18 Conslitulion Drive Suite 8 • Bedford, New Hampshire 03110 (603) 637-1043 (866) 783-7101 (FAX) www.dubois-king.com 

--- ------------- ----· - --. Laconia. New Hampshire Randolph. Vermont South Burlington. Vermont Springfield. Vermont 
ATTACHMENT D 
MEMORANDUM 

Date: March 31, 2015 

To: Russ Maguire, Norwood Airport Manager 

From: Alyssa Jacobs, Senior Scientist 

Subject: Environmental Evaluation of Norwood Airport Surplus Property 

Th is Memorandum summarizes environmental perm1tt1ng constraints associated with the 

development of Norwood Memorial Airport surplus property located along Access Road for 

aeronautical development. An existing conditions site plan dated February 26, 2015 of the 

property in question has been provided for the purposes of this analysis. As noted in the letter 

dated January 9, 2015 from FAA to Russ Maguire, Airport Manager for the Norwood Memorial 

Airport, this property is currently util ized as a parking lot under a lease agreement. 

Existing Conditions: 

The paved parking lot is bordered directly to the north by both forested and scrub shrub wetlands 

on Norwood Airport property associated with the Neponset River and Purgatory Brook. According 

to the currently effective Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Map for 

Norfolk County, Massachusetts, Community Panel Number # 25021 C0183E, Revision Date July 

17, 2012 Airport property to the north is also mapped as Zone A - 100 year flood plain. A small 

area of compensatory flood storage is located to the northeast of the parking lot as permitted in 

2001. 

It is bordered to the south by Access Road and an undeveloped parcel owned by Access Road 

Assoc. LLP. It is bordered to the east by a parking lot owned by Noreen and Vincent Michienze. A 

portion of the property is also located within the Runway Protection Zone associated with Runway 

10-28. A sewer easement runs through the property. The parcel itself is located within the Fowl 

Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

Environmental Constraints: 

Constraints associated with aeronautical development are mainly associated with the difficulty in 

accessing the property from existing apron space at Norwood Airport in a manner that is 

permittable under existing regulations at the federal, state and local level. Wetlands and floodplain 

would likely need to be crossed in order to access the property from either the North Ramp or 

:psilon 
2 

North-South Taxilane as it is infeasible to have aircraft access the property via Access Road. NorthSouth Taxilane terminates in a helipad at its western extent and does not directly connect to 

Runway 10-28. These wetland crossings would result in fill in the vegetated wetland and fill in the 

1 00-year floodplain, both jurisdictional areas. Epsilon has prepared the following preliminary 

environmental permitting analysis to determine if aeronautical development of this surplus property 

would likely to be subject to certain local, state and federal environmental regulations. The 

potentially applicable regulations evaluated by Epsilon are discussed below. 

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: 

The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131 § 40) and implementing regulations (31 0 

CMR 10.00) is a state statute administered locally by the Town of Norwood Conservation 

Commission. The WPA recognizes eight important interests provided by wetlands, waterbodies 

and other resource areas. 1 These eight interests are: 1) protection of public and private water 

supply, 2) protection of groundwater supply, 3) flood control, 4) storm damage prevention, 5) 

prevention of pollution, 6) protection of land containing shellfish, 7) protection of fisheries, and 8) 

protection of wildlife habitat. The general performance standards for work or activities occurring 

within wetland resource areas are identified in the WPA regulations. 

Based upon Epsilon's review of the existing conditions plan, it is unlikely that a wetland crossing of 

less than 5,000 s.f. could be constructed in order to directly access the property. While there is a 

finger of upland directly south of Runway 10-28, it contains the compensatory storage area for a 

prior project. Furthermore, the terminus of North-South Taxilane ends in a helipad. Therefore, said 

crossing could not be designed to meet Wetlands Protection Act's regulatory performance standards 

for impacts to bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) of greater than 5,000 s.f. and for "destroying or 

otherwise impairing" BVW located in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). See 310 

CMR 1 0.55. A crossing therefore would require a Variance from the Commissioner of MassDEP. 

As stated in the Massachusetts Wetlands regulations, the Commissioner may issue a Variance if, 

• there are no reasonable conditions or alternatives that would allow the project to proceed 

in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act; 

• mitigating measures are proposed that will allow the project to be conditioned so as to 

contribute to the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act; and 

• the Variance is necessary to accommodate an overriding community, regional, state, or 

national public interest. 

In this case, there is not an interest of public safety for the purpose of aeronautical development. 

MassDEP will deny a Variance request for development only reasons. A wetland fill greater than 

Inland wetland resource areas protected under the WPA include Bank (310 CMR 10.54), Bordering 

Vegetated Wetland (31 0 CMR 1 0.55), Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways (31 0 CMR 1 0.56), Land 

Subject to Flooding (310 CMR 10.57), and Riverfront Area (310 CMR 10.58). 
3 

5,000 s.f. is not permittable under the Wetlands Protection Act. Wetland replication must be 

provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio impact to mitigation area. 

Norwood Wetlands Protection Bylaw 

In addition to implementing the WPA regulations, Norwood Conservation Commission also 

implements their own local Bylaw and associated regulations. The filing procedures of the bylaw 

are generally consistent with the WPA regulations; however the Bylaw expands upon the wetland 

resource area values and interests protected by the WPA and also protects additional wetland 

resources beyond those protected by the WPA. The Bylaw also imposes additional performance 

standards stricter than those within the WPA and its regulations. 

Under the Bylaw, the 1 00-foot Buffer Zone contains a 25-Foot No-Disturbance Zone, which is that 

portion of the Buffer Zone which extends twenty-five (25) feet horizontally from the edge of 

wetland resource areas including (in part) any freshwater wetlands, rivers, and intermittent streams. 

No work shall be conducted with the Undisturbed Buffer Area (UBA) with the exception of removal 

of debris, or maintenance I restoration work as instructed or approved by the Conservation 

Commission or its Agent. Such exceptions may be granted for planting and landscaping within this 

area. There is also a No-Build Area which extends between 25 and 50 feet from the edge of a 

resource area. In a No Build Area (NBA) no construction or removal of vegetation is allowed. 

Building construction prohibited in this area includes, but is not limited to, porches, decks, and 

sheds. Construction may include fences, driveways, landscaping, at the discretion of the 

Commission. The Commission may authorize other activities. 

While it appears the Commission may have some leniency regarding activities in buffer zones as 

described above, it is unlikely that they would allow fill in wetlands for purely aeronautical 

development purposes without a public interest of safety. Past conversations with the Norwood 

Conservation Agent have indicated that additional construction in wetlands for aeronautical 

development would not be permitted. 

Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act 

Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act regulates the "discharge of dredged or fill material" into 

"waters of the United States", including most wetlands. It is implemented by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers ("USACE") with input and comments solicited from other federal agencies including 

the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

"Waters of the United States" is broadly defined in the federal regulations that implement the Clean 

Water Act. It includes tidal waters, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. In inland waters, 

USACE jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends landward to the ordinary high water mark 

and/or any wetlands adjacent thereto. 
4 

Two types of permit authorizations exist under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - General 

Permits and Individual Permits. General Permits are for projects that will have only minimal 

adverse impact, individually and cumulatively, upon wetlands and other waters. Individual Permits 

are required for projects that will have more than minimal adverse impact to wetlands and other 

waters. There is a General Permit ("GP") program for each of the six New England states. 

Activities associated with the project that would be subject to Section 404 include those resulting in 

a "discharge of dredged or fill material" into waters of the United States. Fill less than 5,000 s.f. 

would require submittal of a Self-Verification Form. Fill greater than 5,000 s.f. but less than 1 acre 

in USACE jurisdictional wetlands would be subject to a Pre-Construction Notification filing; fill 

greater than 1 acre would be subject to an Individual Permit filing under the Massachusetts General 

Permit. 

Section 401 of the U.S. Clean Water Act 

A 401 Water Quality Certificate ("WQC") is required under the U.S. Clean Water Act for certain 

activities in wetlands and waterways. The 401 program is a Federal statute administered through 

state regulations (see 310 CMR 9.00) by DEP to ensure that a project complies with state surface 

water quality standards (314 CMR 4.00). 

Generally speaking, a Section 401 WQC would be required in the event that (1) the USACE 

requires an Individual Permit, (2) if more than 5,000 square feet of bordering or isolated vegetated 

wetlands and/or land under water are cumulatively altered, or (3) if the project results in a 

discharge of fill material into a salt marsh, Outstanding Resource Water (e.g., vernal pools and 

public drinking water supplies and tributaries thereto), or rare and endangered species habitat in 

isolated vegetated wetlands. The 1 00-yr floodplain is not regulated by DEP under Section 401. 

A 401 WQC would be required for fills greater than 5,000 s.f. of vegetated wetlands and/or land 

under water. 

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act 

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA") requires that state agencies use "all 

practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environment," and applies to projects 

above a certain size that involve some state agency action (that is, state permit, state agency 

funding, or land transfer from a state agency). A project that requires a state action and meets or 

exceeds a related threshold in the MEPA regulations is subject to MEPA review. 

MEPA review thresholds are organized into eleven categories and are used to determine whether 

MEPA review of a project is required. Any proposed project at the site requiring a state permit or 

state action (e.g., sewer connection permit, curb-cut permit, water quality certification, Chapter 91 

license, Superseding Order of Conditions, etc., or a "Permit"L in addition to exceeding a related 

MEPA threshold, would require MEPA review. Provided a Permit is required, MEPA review 
5 

thresholds that could potentially be met or exceeded relate to the wetlands, land, transportation, 

and rare species categories, as follows: 

• Construction of a new taxiway at an airport; 

• Construction of new or expansion of existing air cargo buildings at an airport by 100,000 

s.f. 

• Creation of five or more acres of impervious area could trigger MEPA review; and 

• Any project within a designated ACEC, unless the Project consists solely of one single 

family dwelling. 

Once project design is advanced to a sufficient level, a complete review of the proposed project 

relative to (1) ~ MEPA thresholds (in addition to those referenced above) and (2) any required state 

permits or actions will need to be conducted for a final determination as to whether a MEPA filing 

is required for the project. 

Summary 

Based on the above assessment, it is highly unlikely that the necessary approvals could be obtained 

to construct access to the parking lot for aeronautical development under applicable environmental 

regulations. It is infeasible to access the property without filling in greater than 5,000 s.f. of 

wetlands while avoiding the existing compensatory storage area north of the parking lot. Multiple 

permits for wetlands fill less than 5,000 s.f. would need to be obtained including: 

• an Order of Conditions from the Norwood Conservation Commission under the Bylaw 

and Wetlands Protection Act; 

• fill less than 5,000 s.f. would require submittal of a Self-Verification Form to the Army 

Corps of Engineers; and 

• a MEPA ENF submittal would be required for the work within an ACEC. 
ATTACHMENT E