By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — Tensions ran incredibly high between a subdivision’s contractor and the Planning Board during a contentious July 23 meeting.
The Planning Board agreed during its June meeting to continue a discussion on contractor GTA Co., Inc.’s request to reduce the four-lot Vallis Way subdivision’s construction performance bond from $230,000 to $116,000 to the July 23 meeting. The subdivision is located off of Lowell Street.
During the June meeting, a group of homeowners and the Planning Board expressed concerns with the way GTA Co., Inc. has been constructing the Vallis Way subdivision. The Planning Board and the homeowners requested that the company’s attorney, Jesse Schomer, provide additional documentation about the cost estimates for completing the remaining work (see separate story).
In the wake of the town not having a town engineer due to Deputy Department of Public Works (DPW) Director/Town Engineer John Tomasz’s retirement last month, the town has retained Beta Group, Inc. to provide on-call services until the town engineer the position is filled.
Beta Group Senior Project Manager Jason Plourde stated in a July 23 letter sent to Planning and Conservation Director Emilie Cademartori that the engineering firm “conducted site visits during the week of July 20, 2025 to evaluate the construction status and identify outstanding items that need to be completed as per the contract documents for the Vallis Way development.”
“Based on the site evaluation, Beta is concerned with the lack of soil stabilization along the east side of Vallis Way between Lowell Street and the retaining wall, coupled with the lack of available space for trees to be planted between the retaining wall and the paved portion of Vallis Way,” stated Plourde. “Beta also prepared an engineering cost estimate for the outstanding items based on MassDOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation) bid unit pricing that totaled approximately $420,000. Notable discrepancies were discovered for missing granite, sloped edge at the cul-de-sac (shown on the plan, but not represented in the developer’s cost estimate) and the pricing of asphalt for the roadway, driveways, sidewalks and curbing. Based on these findings, Beta recommends that the construction bond not be reduced to ensure that the remaining outstanding items be completed satisfactorily as per the contract documents.”
Cademartori emailed attorney Schomer at 3:27 p.m. on Wednesday, July 16 that asked if he would be appearing at the Planning Board’s July 23 meeting to discuss the Vallis Way subdivision bond reduction request.
Schomer responded to Cademartori’s email at 5:13 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, which requested that the Planning Board continue the Vallis Way discussion to its August meeting because he had a prior commitment in Ipswich that was occurring at the same time as the Planning Board’s 7 p.m. meeting. He stated that he and GTA Co., Inc. owner Greg Antonelli “wanted to wait to come back to the board on the bond reduction request after there was some new/additional information to report regarding the electricity issue that was discussed at the last meeting.”
“We’re not quite ready to report back as of (July 23),” stated Schomer. “We definitely want to be present for this discussion, so we request that this agenda item please be postponed to the board’s next meeting.”
Schomer also emailed Planning Board Chair Page Wilkins at 6:47 p.m. on July 23 that requested the Vallis Way discussion be continued to the August meeting.
Wilkins asked her fellow Planning Board members during the meeting if they wanted to continue the Vallis Way subdivision bond reduction request.
“If the applicant has a request to reduce the bond but they are not ready to go ahead tonight according to their attorney, then everything stays status quo and we take it up in a month,” said Planning Board member Brian Charville. “The board will continue to hold the bond that we have held for a couple of years now. Nothing changes, but at least from the public’s perspective, there is no reduction in the bond which is there to protect the public.”
Planning Board member Kate Flaws requested that Beta Group, Inc. provide additional cost estimates to “support the opinion the bond should have been $420,000.”
“I feel like it is a little light on the specifics on how they arrived at that number,” said Flaws.
Cademartori said she received the email from Beta Group, Inc. before the meeting.
“Their summary letter today was more or less to state the amount was far more than the bond in total, so they didn’t support a bond reduction at all,” said Cademartori. “They did say they do have details on that, but they just didn’t have time today to do it. The town only brought them on board this week.”
Cademartori said the town has been trying to hire a new town engineer “for months,” but the search hasn’t been successful.
“We are starting to engage outside services for all of the different parts of the town engineer’s role,” said Cademartori.
“Beta was just brought in this week, and the DPW director asked them to do this first knowing this was on our agenda. I am sure they can provide more information at a future meeting if the board desires.”
GTA Co, Inc. President Greg Antonelli objected to the Planning Board discussing Beta Group, Inc.’s letter while he was sitting in the Al Merritt Media and Cultural Center.
“We asked you to continue this without discussion,” said Antonelli. “Now you are discussing it.”
Wilkins said the Planning Board’s decision to discuss the Beta Group, Inc.’s letter was the panel’s “prerogative.”
“A continuance without discussion means you don’t discuss it,” retorted Antonelli. “This is actually outrageous that you are discussing it.”
Cademartori and Planning Board member Ed Champy both asked Antonelli to come to the podium so he could speak into a microphone. He agreed to the request.
“We asked for a continuance without comment, which means we are asking for no discussion,” said Antonelli. “Obviously that wasn’t agreed to, which is absolutely outrageous. When an attorney asks for a continuance without comment, that means no comment.”
Antonelli requested to receive a copy of Beta Group, Inc.’s letter.
Cademartori said Beta Group, Inc. emailed her the Vallis Way letter an hour before the meeting started.
“I certainly planned on providing it (on July 24) during the regular business day,” said Cademartori.
After Wilkins told Antonelli that he needed to address his questions “through the chair” and not Cademartori, the contractor asked her if the Planning Board was going to discuss Beta Group’s letter.
“It is on our agenda and it is our prerogative if we discuss something on our agenda,” said Wilkins. “We have no restriction on what we can discuss or not.”
Antonelli walked over to Cademartori and stuck out his hand to get a copy of the letter while Wilkins was answering his question. Wilkins said Cademartori could give it to him.
“Read the letter,” said Wilkins. “We are not going to get into a back-and-forth. I got a request to have this continued, and we were discussing that request. I have to see if the board is interested in that.”
Charville said two other Planning Board members could vote with him on continuing the discussion to the Planning Board’s August meeting.
“We don’t need to beat a dead horse,” said Charville. “If you want to keep the substantive discussion going, it may turn to the board deciding to just deny the reduction request.”
Antontelli said he “wanted to talk about the letter since we are talking about it.”
“This board got a letter today, this afternoon, from Beta Group for $420,000. And you think this is okay with no backup?” Antonelli asked. “Are you kidding me?”
Flaws recalled that she had just requested that Beta Group provide additional information regarding the $420,000 cost estimate for the remaining work that needs to be completed on the Vallis Way subdivision.
Charville said the town is “scrambling” in order to “try and backfill duties of the town engineer role.” He said receiving additional information from both the engineering firm and the contractor will “help the board.”
“So why submit it then?” Antonelli inquired. “It’s incomplete.”
Cademartori said Beta Group, Inc. provided the cost estimate because the Vallis Way bond reduction request was on the Planning Board’s agenda.
Antonelli criticized Beta Group’s $420,000 cost estimate.
“We are talking about MassDOT,” said Antonelli. “This is not a MassDOT job. This is a private job. Prices vary drastically.”
Champy said the Vallis Way subdivision project “does become public if the town does have to capture the bond.”
“It doesn’t,” said Antonelli in response.
Champy said yes it does.
Antonelli said the Beta Group’s letter was “very incomplete” because it did not include “unit prices.”
“We asked for continuance without comment,” said Antonelli in response. “An attorney sent it in. It should have been open and shut.”
Champy pushed back on Antonelli’s characterization of the Planning Board’s discussion.
“I don’t see an issue with discussing it,” said Champy. “The attorney can ask for whatever he wants. We talk about on the mic because we don’t talk about it off the mic.”
Cademartori clarified that the Vallis Way subdivision bond reduction request was “not a public hearing” and was “an administrative item.”
Antonelli said the Planning Board “should not be talking about it if the attorney is not here.”
Flaws said the Planning Board “doesn’t have to grant the continuance.”
Wilkins agreed.
“We could make a decision right now,” said Wilkins.
Antonelli was livid with Wilkins, Flaws and Champy.
“Don’t grant it,” fired back Antonelli. “Talk about it. Talk about it.”
Antonelli said the Planning Board should put the Beta Group’s letter “through a shredder.”
“This is a joke,” said Antonelli.
Flaws reiterated once again that the Planning Board was “going to request additional information to support” Beta Group’s $420,000 cost estimate.
“This is retaliation,” Antonelli fired back in response.
Champy said the Planning Board requested additional GTA Co., Inc. cost estimate information from Schomer at the June meeting. He suggested that the Planning Board consider voting not to continue the Vallis Way subdivision bond reduction request.
“They can apply for the bond reduction again,” said Champy.
Antonelli was infuriated by Champy’s proposal.
“I don’t care,” said Antonelli.
Champy was unfazed.
“I don’t care either,” said Champy.
Antonelli said Beta Group’s letter was “a complete joke.”
“It’s an embarrassment actually,” said Antonelli. “It’s an embarrassment of taxpayer’s dollars.”
Champy said he was “not embarrassed” by the letter.
Wilkins said Cademartori emailed Schomer to ask the attorney if he would be appearing at the July 23 meeting, and said he did not respond to her until July 23.
After Wilkins told Antonelli to go back to his seat, he continued giving the Planning Board an earful that prompted Wilkins to him to “stop yelling at the board from the audience.”
Wilkins called for a motion to deny GTA Co. Inc.’s bond reduction request, which was moved by Champy and seconded by Flaws. Wilkins, Flaws, Champy and Planning Board Vice Chair Amy MacNulty voted to deny GTA Co., Inc.’s bond reduction request for the Vallis Way subdivision. Charville voted against the motion.
“Just apply again,” said Champy.