Advisory subcommittee to send MassDOT letter, weigh broad stakeholder mailing and historic‑commission outreach

The subcommittee reviewed two draft letters: one intended for MassDOT and a second for a broad stakeholder list. Speaker 2 spotted an error in the DOT letter that referenced 37 acres when it should read 51 acres; members agreed to correct that figure before finalizing.

Participants debated addressees and distribution. Some members recommended sending the MassDOT letter to the highway administrator or the secretary to secure higher‑level attention; others said targeting the project manager or senior staff for a meeting would be more effective. Speaker 4 said arranging a meeting with a MassDOT project manager or senior staff should be a priority and recommended cc’ing DCAM and the town manager as courtesies.

The group also questioned the utility of mailing the stakeholder letter to all 406 contacts on the outreach matrix because of postage cost and effectiveness. Speaker 2 suggested keeping the broad letter ready but sending targeted MassDOT‑style outreach or direct follow‑ups to prioritized contacts. The subcommittee left the broad stakeholder mailing on hold but agreed to adapt letters quickly for targeted outreach.

On historic preservation, members recommended contacting the Massachusetts Historical Commission and noted that DCAM had hired a conservation/preservation consultant. They suggested adapting the stakeholder letter to mention historic concerns and inviting Anne Clifford or other local preservation liaisons to future meetings.

No public comments were received during the meeting; the group approved minutes earlier in the session and adjourned after discussing next steps.