Street sweeper?? Been here almost thirty years and have not once seen the sweeper come down my poorly paved, pothole ridden street. Besides the street is down to its binder coat and the manhole structure is starting to cave in. I thinks it’s time to call on my state Rep because it's senseless go to the town cause they'll just ask the DPW road crew for their input anyways they always miss half the pot holes on the street.

Am I mistaken in remembering that the street sweeper recently caught on fire?

I think it is time for the Town of Tewksbury to mail out the warrants for any and allTown Meetings. Thanks to Bill Gilman for informing town residents of upcoming events. If he weren't for him, all readers of the Tewksbury Patch find out what is going on in this town. Anyone not patched in is left out in the cold knowing nothing. We are going vote on a new field for the Tewksbury High School and new tennis courts for the second time around? Tell me if I am wrong but didn't we vote "No" to these articles at our annual Town Meeting? Is this a way of getting it done through the back door? It is appalling that this town gets away with not everyone knowing about a town meeting. The Town Warrants have to be mailed out. In this manner everyone knows and is informed about where our property taxes are going. Get with it The Town of Tewksbury. Inform all the people, young, old, disabled, etc.

Sean is correct re. the tennis courts.....the artificial turf field is a whole different animal. FYI....there are hard copies of the warrant available at the public library as well as Town Hall.

Shaun,

Did I miss something here? How were we informed about this change in policy? Was there a town wide mailing to inform all residents of this? I knew nothing about this until I saw your post.

How many times do the people of Tewksbury have to say no to artifical turf. The cost of maintenance would not be a savings for the town. Why would you want to build a tennis complex using funds from the community preservation. How do you justify this? If you have extra funds in the community preservation, how about using these funds to being down water and real estate taxes. Wow what an idea!!!!!! I would see the town sweeper on my street at least once a year . This does not happen any more. Maybe we could hire a person with a broom to do the job. Last but not least, Why do we need 30 smartboards and 200 monitor's for the schools. What school needs them? Who needs them? Why do they need them. Please explain to the people of this town, who pay your salary, Why????????? PS The people of this town deserve to receive information by all kinds of media.

Sandy - regarding your comment about community preservation funds....there are specific uses for which these funds can only be used for (http://communitypreservation.org/) , one of them being outdoor recreation. So these funds cannot be used to lower the water bill or real estate taxes.

The money to build the tennis courts is already available, so your taxes will not be increased at all to have these 5 courts built.

The Community Preservation Committee, Town Manager, Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee have all supported Article 11 as being a benefit for our town.

Best Regards,
Barry Lewin
President, Friends of Tewksbury Tennis

Sandy,
There are maintenance costs associated with the fields regardless if they are turf or grass, so maintenance is still going to exist. They appear to have the opportunity to upgrade the field - a field that is going to be installed regardless of this vote - to turf, for free. You state that the maintenance cost for turf would not be a savings for the town. Do you have documentation regarding that statement? I would like to see a comparison between field maintenance and turf maintenance.

As far as the smartboards, my opinion is they should be in every single classroom in every school in this town. Any parent who has seen this technology in action and how it works will agree. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you ask for a demonstration, perhaps you will better understand the need.

The other gentleman explained the legal use of CPA funds.

While I understand even if you were educated on these topics, you still could vote against them, which is fine - its why we vote, however, it would be nice if people at least attempted to educate themselves before strongly opposing a topic.

It is much easier to replace grass than turf. Where I worked they use turf for the playground for the children. In no time the playground was a mess. The playground turf was replaced with grass and the children like it better and it costed less to maintain.That's my comment. Barry, thank you for the information on the tennis courts. It will come into play when I go to vote.

Thank you Sean. It had been my understanding that the grant took care of the turf installation and the rest (bleachers, etc.) would still be developed as was budgeted and approved. I am going to take another read through the information, as I must have misunderstood.

Here's the info presented on the Patch about the grant hearing that was held. Make sure to scroll down to my comments for a few more details and a link to another article.
http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/public-hearing-scheduled-on-grant-application-for-artificial-turf-field

If the town spends $750,000 and the maximum amount that could be received is $500,00 IF the grant is successful, and the purpose of this article is to support spending money up front to be reimbursed, then where is the additional $250,000 being accounted for?

Is this $750,000 going to be spent in addition to the $500,000 that could be obtained through a successful grant? I am concerned about the "transparency" of this process.

These concerns would lead me to be a "no" vote on the article.

jo - I just asked about things so that people have the information that is available. You can also check in with the Town Manager's office to get more questions answered.

1- The grant requires that the town secure the funds at town meeting

2- We do not know what the grant amount will be (max $400K)

3- If we get a grant, it will be necessary to go back to town meeting in May to approve the difference, before the project goes forward. I was told that depending on the grant amount, credit for not doing the grass, fund raising, and actual costs for the field installation, it may not be necessary to go back to town meeting. Also, if that is necessary, construction scheduling will be tight.

Ater reading thru all of the warrants, the one that really makes me chuckle is Article 19, which pertains to the Conservation Commission Wetalnds Protecion By-Law. In short, this article would like to reduce the "No Build Zone" from 50 feet from the edge of wetlands down to 20 feet. Furthermore it also want to reduce the No Disturb Zone from 25 geet down to 10 feet from the edge of wetlands.

Now what makes me "chuckle" is that this Article was submitted by the Polimeno and Keane families. (Yes the same Krissy Polimeno who is on the School Committee) However, I'm sure that it's just totally "coincidental" though that both famlies are amidst renovations/additions to their respective homes which in turn will move them within the current No Disturb & No Build Zone guidelines.

So from the outside, it looks like Mrs. Polimeno is using her "name recognition" to establish an amedment to the Wetlands Protection by-law, foe the sole purpose of benefitting her home first (if this is approved at he Town Meeting).

Our Wetlands are protected for a reason, as they are a precious commodity we take for granted. The No Build Zone and No Buffer Zone by-laws were set up so that homeowners wouldn't encroach on disturbing them.

This article is looking to reduce those Zones by 1/2 of the established footage that we all live by. So maybe those 2 families can build their personal home projects according to the current law and not try and change it for their own good.

Sean- so if this is the case, then maybe the ConCom should ask those families specifically if they have something in mind for the future and then put it on record. Are they really looking out for the best interest of the community at large, or do they have plans in the future whereby if this article passes, they can then use the newly passed article to their own advantage and continue to add on to their own houses deeper into the wetlands.

Perception is everything so motive or not I think this would set a precedent benefiting no one but developers. No thanks.

I support maintaining the Wetlands Protection Bylaw in its current format.
I do not think posters should be able to use a fake name and make allegations about individuals using their real names.

Bob Rauseo
Shawsheen River Watershed Association

I also support keeping the wetland bylaw as it is now. Why would we want to DECREASE our wetlands protection by more than half? There are already allowable exemptions in the current bylaw for things such as decks, sheds, patios and pools so in my mind passage of this article to change it is totally unnecessary and will leave the door wide open for potential abuse. Even on Keith's chart it says under recommendations pertaining to this article that the BOS voted to table it and the ConCom recommends withdrawal by the sponsor or indefinite postponement. I am voting NO on Article 19.

I would like to quell a rumor that I have heard.

FACT: Article 19 to change the Wetland Bylaw is NOT needed for the Tennis Courts nor the Turf Field.
We have a waiver clause for public projects. For example, the new Tewksbury High School was permitted and built under the provisions of our current Wetlands Protection Bylaw.