:'<.'l'0Rn:00 :.;:.: .;...**~**

- y 0 "J' f- tn


### . . . 

### .

. . ;; 

### ,

• .I'J:::B 23
."\

OFFICE ADDRESS I25 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062


### April 9, 2015 

# NorwoodMemorialAirport Russ Maguire,A.A.E. ,ACE,AirportManager



### Federal Aviation Administration New England Region, Airports Division Attn: Bryon H. Rakoff , Manager ofPlanning and Program Branch 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 MAILING ADDRESS 125 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062



### RE: Request for Release ofSurplus AirportProperty (Auto Storage Lot) for Non-Aeronautical Use, PerRecent 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 ofNorwood to make every effort to develop this parcel ofaeronautical property for the benefit ofcivil aviation, to address the lack ofavailable ramp space atNorwood Memorial Airport." Followingreceipt ofyour letter, the NAC tasked its Senior Program Manager for Engineering, JeffAdler, of 

### DuBois & 

### King (D&K), as well as D&K's consultant, 

### Epsilon Associates-specifically, Senior Scientist, AlyssaJacobs-to perform a land development analysis pertinentto 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 ofthis 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 ofwetlands, while avoiding the existing compensatory flood storage area noted in the existing conditions plan 

### (AttachmentE)
. 

### 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 ofwhich 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 ofthe 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 subjectproperty for non-aeronautical use. Please feel free to contact me with any ofyour questions
. Thank you. Respectfully submitted,

# (~ /fV}

# ~ Russ Maguire,

# Manage**~** Norwood Memorial Airport Cc: Norwood Airport Commission;DuBois & 

### King; EpsilonAssociates 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, ofDuBois & 

### King,to R. Maguire • 3/31115 supporting memorandum from A
. Jacobs, ofEpsilonAssociates,toR. Maguire • 2/26/15 existing conditions site plan ofthe Norwood Airport and subject property (shown as bluehatched in plan)

# ATTACHMENT A

# Cfhc 'rC,\\-'N

**fbl~ N~t**  

# It

**\\ ~J~»**  

# It Commonwealtho f Massachusetts ;...._ 

# _______ "·------·---- ·---·-··- -··-···-····- ·
OFFICE ADDRESS 125 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062 

### January 22,2015 

## NorwoodMemorialAirport RussMaguire,A.A.E., ACE, AirportManager



### Federal Aviation Administration New England Region, Airports Division Attn: Bryon H. 

### Rakoff, Manager ofPlanning and ProgramBranch 

### 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 RE: Response to FAA LetterDated 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 l etter 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 ofyour letter, you state: "Before agreeing to release this parcel ofland, the FAA expects the Town ofNorwood to make every effort to develop this parcel ofaeronautical 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 pertinentto the parcel in question. This in tum will be shared with FAA. Ifyou 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.

P h

o

n

e:

### (781) 255-5616 I

### Fax: ( 81) 255-561 I rmaguire@norwoodma.gov

### Sincerely,



# ~~

**'** Russ Maguire,



# Mana~ Norwood Memorial Airport



### CC: NorwoodAirport Commission; Norwood Town Counsel;Jeff Adler , DuBois & 

### King

# ATTACHMENT BU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### January 9, 2015 Mr. Russ Maguire, A.A.E. 

### Airport Manager New England Region



### NorwoodMemorial Airport 125 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062
Dear Mr. Maguire: 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803



### OnMarch 8, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received a request for release of surplus airport property for non-aeronautical land use by the Town ofNorwoodAirport Commission (Town). This letter was a follow up to another letterthatthe 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 ofa change ofland use requires that the total impact ofa proposal be considered on the netbenefitto be derived by civilaviation and the compatibility of the proposal withthe needs ofcivil aviation, includingthe balance ofbenefits to aeronautical users relative to the public at large. The FAA is aware that this parcel ofproperty is currently rented at non-aeronautical fair market value for vehicle parking
..The FAAalso 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 describedby airport officials as having little orminimal 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 changingthis parcel's designation from aeronautical to nonaeronautical land use. Therefore, this request is denied at this time.
.... Before agreeing to release this parcel ofland, the FAA expects the Town ofNorwoodto make every effortto develop this parcel ofaeronautical property for the benefit ofcivil aviation, to address the lack ofavailable aircraft ramp space at Norwood Memorial Airport. 

### Ifyou have any questions, please contact Thomas Vick, FAANewEngland Compliance Specialist, at (202) 267-8725. Sincerely,



# IST~f:,_ttll,

**~!L.** 

### Mary

## T. Walsh Manager, Airports Division

# ATTACHMENT CENGINEERING • 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 ofthe surplus property owned by the airport and leased to David Spiegel and subleased to Verizon forvehicle parking. We understand based on a letterfrom FAA to the airport (dated January 9, 2015), that "FAA expects theTown of Norwood to make every effort to developthis parcel ofaeronautical propertyforthe benefit ofcivil aviation, to address the lack ofavailable ramp space at Norwood Memorial Airport." Based on our review, it is not possible to access this propertyfrom the existing apron orthe North/South Taxilane without filling in greaterthan 5,000 s.f
. ofwetlands 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 ofsafety. Therefore, it is ouropinion that development ofthis parcel for additional ramp space is not possible under applicable environmental regulations. Ifyou should have any questions or comments, please call me. Very trulyyours, DuBOIS & KING, INC.



# ~ Senior Project Manager JAA/js

18 Conslitulion Drive Suite 8 • Bedf ord, 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 ofthe 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 100-year floodplain, both jurisdictional areas. Epsilon has prepared the following preliminary environmental permitting analysis to determine if aeronautical development ofthis 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 ofthe 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 10.55. A crossing therefore would require a Variance from the Commissioner of MassDEP. As stated in the Massachusetts Wetlands regulations, the Commissioner may issue aVariance 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 10.56), 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 100-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 ofthe 

### 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 100-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 review5

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 offive 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 ESITEPLANNORWOODAIRPORTFEBRUARY26,2015