After introductions, Tom Sommers gave a brief history and explained the planned agenda for the presentation.

After explaining the three purposes of tonight’s meeting, Chris Bean gave an overview of the remaining alternatives. The four new location alternatives are known as A (southern interchange – Tsienneto Road), B (southern interchange – bypass of Tsienneto Road), C (northern interchange – Route 28 – bypass of Tsienneto Road), and D (northern interchange – Route 28 – Tsienneto Road). The minor upgrade of NH Route 102 is Alternative F. Two different locations for a potential new interchange are being considered. One interchange is located 0.4 miles north of the Ash Street overpass. Alternatives A and B would both begin at this point and extend easterly from there. Alternative A would continue down Folsom Road and Tsienneto Road to Route 102, while Alternative B would follow on new alignment from Ashleigh Drive easterly to Route 102. The second interchange is located just south of the Stonehenge Road overpass. Alternatives C and D would begin there and extend to the south and east.

New alternatives involving improvements to Londonderry Road and connections to the existing Alternatives A and B were suggested by an individual at the January, 2001, Public Informational Meetings. FHWA and NHDOT felt those options might have some merit and suggested that the Towns further investigate these new options. CLD was then directed by the Towns to develop pre-conceptual plans and initial impact studies and report back to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Local Administrative Oversight Committee (LAOC).

After completing these initial studies, a joint meeting with the TAC and LAOC was held on July 17, 2001. It was determined that although Alternatives G and H provided only minimal traffic reductions along Broadway and involved substantial right-of-way impacts on Londonderry Road, more input from the Resource Agencies, the Town Councils and the public should be solicited before these alternatives are removed from further consideration. A similar meeting was held with the Resource Agencies (Federal and State agencies with permitting and/or review responsibilities) on July 18, 2001 and with the Londonderry Town Council on August 20, 2001.

CLD has developed a conceptual plan showing a hybrid alternative (Alternative G) using Londonderry Road and connecting to Alternative A. Tom Sommers explained that this alternative would begin on NH Route 102 (Broadway) just east of the Exit 4 ramps and require modifications to the Broadway/Londonderry Road intersection, providing a primary through movement for traffic along Londonderry Road and a secondary movement for traffic continuing down Broadway. This intersection would be signalized. A second hybrid alternative (Alternative H) also uses Londonderry Road and would connect to Alternative B. A preliminary environmental impact matrix and a 1 inch/2000 ft. plan view including the two new alternatives and the other remaining alternatives (A, B, C, D, and F) was distributed for discussion.

Both Alternatives G and H would require the expansion of Londonderry Road to five lanes and would involve substantial right-of-way impacts to homes and businesses along Londonderry Road and NH Route 102. Potential traffic benefits along Broadway if the new alternatives progressed were discussed. Southern NH Planning Commission completed a traffic model analysis for the new alternatives. Alternatives G and H would provide only minimal traffic volume reductions on Broadway. The new alternatives would provide less relief (for Broadway) than the two northerly alternatives (C and D) and much less relief than Alternatives A and B.

Tom Sommers summarized meetings with the Londonderry Town Council (8/20/01) and the Derry Town Council (9/4/01). The Londonderry Town Council had voted to approve further more detailed studies of Alternatives A, B, F and the No-Build option. The Derry Town Council voted to approve studies of Alternatives A, B (modified to end at NH Route 28), F and the No-Build option.

Since those two meetings were held, the FHWA has indicated that they did not support the removal of Alternatives C and D from further study and that the studies should include Alternatives A, B, C, D, Upgrade (F), and No-Build. It is the opinion of the FHWA that all of these options are reasonable and feasible alternatives to be carried forward through the EIS process.

a) A Derry resident who had attended the 9/4/01 meeting asked that since the Derry Council had gone on record to withdraw any funding related to Alternatives B or C, would that fact therefore make those two alternatives unreasonable or infeasible?

Tom explained that although the Derry Town Council did state their position strongly, Federal regulations require continuation of the study of these alternatives. If either of those alternatives were selected as the preferred alternative, the Towns would have a difficult time supporting them. There is a distinction between what is required by the NEPA process and what the Towns would support.

b) Do the Derry and Londonderry Town Councils, and CLD, support the study of Alternatives G and H?

The two Town councils voted to continue the studies of Alternatives A, B, (or modified B in the case of Derry), F and no-build. CLD advocated that position to the FHWA, calling for the elimination of Alternatives C, D, G and H. FHWA agreed with the reasons for eliminating Alternatives G and H, but not C and D.

c) Alternative B was referred to as a "new location alternative". It should not be called that because it has severe impacts to a residential neighborhood at London Road. It is unreasonable to take so many homes. It is more feasible to take commercial businesses. Ultimately the entire project should just be scrapped due to the high costs.

Chris Bean mentioned that impacts, including residential acquisitions, are shown on the Environmental Impacts Matrix. Alternative B would take 14 buildings, including 10 single-family homes and two duplexes, as well as 2 commercial buildings.

d) A Londonderry resident representing a Derry resident on the eastern end of Tsienneto Road asked if that property would be impacted. Is the focus of this meeting to decide on Alternative B versus A? Do the costs include inflation?

Minor impacts associated with improvements to the eastern end of Tsienneto Road are necessary due to the poor vertical and horizontal alignment, the narrow width and obstruction such as stone walls and trees that are close to the road.

All impacts for each alternative have to carefully evaluated and considered. Additional information and continued public input will be needed before a decision can be made.

The costs shown in the matrix do not include inflation.

e) A Londonderry resident whose home could be taken by Alternative A or B, asked what to expect during the right-of-way acquisition process. Also, he asked if property values could be reduced if their home is known to be on one of the remaining alternatives.

Chris Bean explained right-of-way impacts are given careful consideration during the development of engineering alternatives to solve traffic problems, but it is nearly impossible to avoid all impacts. However, all impacts need to be considered and the public has ample opportunity to comment, and those comments are also given full consideration.

Right-of-way acquisitions take place after the formal Public Hearing and after the Final Design Plans are developed. After that, the "right-of-way plans" are developed and negotiations with property owners begin. Sometimes a property acquisition can be expedited, depending on the situation.

f) There is some roadway construction presently occurring near Ashleigh Drive? Is this related to residential development?

No, there is some commercial development occurring in that area. The roadway construction is not related to the Exit 4A project.

g) There appears to be at least one new duplex home on Trolley Car Lane that is not shown on the plans. When were the plans developed?

The plans were based on aerial photography flown in 1998. If the duplex was built in 1999, it will not appear on the plans. CLD will review the area and place the new duplex on the plans.

h) Is the design of the future widening of I-93 finalized and reflected on these plans? If not, then more impacts to Trolley Car Lane properties could occur.

CLD has been coordinating with NHDOT. These plans show the best estimation of where I-93 would be widened through this area. However, the I-93 design is also still under study and is subject to change. (Subsequent to the meeting, Jeff Brillhart indicated that it would be a good time for CLD to set up a meeting with the Department (NHDOT) to review the latest I-93 widening plans.)

i) Is it true that Derry and Londonderry are putting in $5 million each? Where will the rest of the money come from? Who is paying for the EIS study?

The Towns have committed $5 million each, and the EIS studies are included in that funding. The source for additional funding has not been determined.

j) A Derry resident commented that it seems that Alternative A is being favored to improve the value of the undeveloped industrially zoned lands.

As part of the EIS process, CLD will complete a socio-economic analysis to determine if there would be any economic benefits realized by the towns in terms of increased tax revenue.

k) How much is the additional study that FHWA requires, but Derry and Londonderry have to pay for?

Approximately $40,000, split evenly between the two Towns, to study Alternatives C and D.

l) Why does Londonderry pay for these studies when only Derry will benefit?

There have been some preliminary studies that show some economic benefits to Londonderry if these alternatives moved forward.

m) It should be obvious that the taxpayers will be asked to pay for the additional studies. What additional costs have accumulated since January (2001)?

Additional costs associated with conceptual studies of Alternatives G and H are approximately $18,000, split equally between the two towns.

n) Why are we spending additional funds to study alternatives that both the general public and the two Town Councils are opposed to?

Tom Sommers replied that the regulations overseen by the FHWA require that the final product, which will be an EIS, is legally defensible. It is our understanding that the two Towns will request financial assistance from the Federal and State governments once the EIS process is successfully concluded.

o) A Londonderry resident asked how much money has been spent so far?

Chris Bean responded approximately $600,000. The cost for the entire study is approximately $970,000.

p) What is the likelihood of getting Federal funding?

Butch Waidelich responded that the FHWA allocates money to the individual States and the States decide how to best spend those funds, under FHWA guidelines. One way funds are provided is for the US Senate or House of Representatives to designate a specific project with certain funds tied to it. Another way is through a planning process conducted by the State. Funds are allocated to the State and the State decides which projects are funded based on the State’s planning process.

q) A Derry resident stated that Route 102 and Tsienneto Road in Derry are very congested. Bypasses are supposed to pass by congested areas. Also, many large trucks drive through downtown Derry coming and going from the industrial properties along NH 28. An Exit 4A would benefit Londonderry by giving them an opportunity to develop an industrial park next to I-93. If the bypass alternative (Alternative B) were extended to the east, instead of ending where Tsienneto Road meets NH 102, this would be more effective. A true bypass would alleviate traffic congestion and would be building for the future.

Tom Sommers replied that an alternative with a more easterly terminus was investigated but was eliminated from further study due to sensitive historic, archeological and residential impacts.

r) A Derry resident agreed with the last speaker and stated that people should keep an open mind and be willing to help fund important projects like this one. Too often projects do not go forward and then the opportunity is lost.

Thank you.

s) A Derry resident explained that he drives form his home on Old Coach Road to I-93 every day and the trip takes 7-8 minutes and does not feel this is unreasonable. Will the residents get to vote?

Tom Sommers replied that if appropriations are needed from the taxpayers, a vote may be needed. There will also be more opportunities for public input as the EIS process continues.

t) If Alternative D doesn’t take any residences, why is it not considered as much as A or B?

Tom Sommers explained that all remaining alternatives would be given equal consideration.

u) A Londonderry resident moved from Florida to Trolley Car Lane and there was no disclosure from the Town or from the real estate agents about a possible Exit 4A.

Tom Sommers suggested these concerns be addressed to Troy Brown, Londonderry Interim Town Manager.

v) Roberta Robie, Derry resident and CATF member, urged the residents of both Towns to lobby their local officials and State Representatives to pursue funding for this important project. The upcoming elections provide a good opportunity to reach out to those running for office. Special projects can receive funding if the citizens approach our US Congressmen and Senators. Other projects are funded this way in NH, such as the Granite Street widening and Exit 5 (I-293) in Manchester and other projects in Concord.

Thank you.

w) When did the EIS process begin and who contacted CLD?

CLD was contacted by the two Towns, and began the EIS in early 1998.