By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — The Lynnfield Rail Trail is moving forward after Spring Town Meeting approved three warrant articles associated with the project on April 29.
Town Counsel Tom Mullen said Articles 6, 7 and 8 “will complete the Town Meeting actions needed to build Phase 1 of the rail trail.” Phase 1 will go from Ford Avenue, which is off of Perry Avenue, to Nichols Lane in Peabody.
Mullen said Article 6 “authorizes the town to accept temporary easements necessary for construction of the rail trail.”
“There are two private properties affected,” said Mullen. “One is St. Paul’s Church at 127 Summer St. and the other is a single-family home located at 130 Summer St. In both cases, the town needs temporary construction easements abutting the rail trail, which will allow workers to stage their equipment so they can work within the limits of the rail trail itself.”
Mullen said Article 6’s language referencing eminent domain has “caused concern about whether the town plans on taking the easements against the will of the owners.”
“The answer is no,” said Mullen. “The acquisition has been negotiated with the property owners, who have agreed to it.”
Mullen said Article 7 would accept a portion of Ford Avenue that has not been accepted as a public way as a public way.
“The current design of the rail trail has it terminating at the part of Ford Avenue that is not currently a public way,” said Mullen. “As a condition of state funding, the commonwealth requires that the rail trail begin, pass through and end on land in which the public has legal access such as a public way.”
Mullen said Article 8 would dedicate an unused portion of land on Lynnfield Middle School property adjacent to the athletic fields in order to allow people to access the rail trail.
“This land is already owned by the town,” said Mullen.
Department of Public Works (DPW) Director John Scenna said the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) recently approved funding Phase 1 of the Lynnfield Rail Trail in fiscal year 2026, totaling $6,062,695.
“There are no grant matches or other local requirements,” said Scenna. “This will be a project bid, constructed, funded and built day-to-day by MassDOT and their team of top contractors, and tentatively has a project bid date of March 2026.”
Scenna said students will be able to use the rail trail to get to Lynnfield High School and LMS, particularly members of the spring track teams, “without having to run on sidewalks of major roads in town.”
While Spring Town Meeting was being asked to approve three articles related to Phase 1, Scenna said MassDOT is tentatively scheduled to fund Phase 2 of the rail trail, which would go from Ford Avenue, through Reedy Meadow and into Wakefield, in “FY29 or later, pending completion of design and permitting tasks.”
“In consultation with MassDOT, our design efforts are currently paused for Phase 2 as we await new DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) regulations that are expected to positively impact our design and some of our environmental challenges,” said Scenna. “The town still intends to pursue the design and construction of Phase 2, which has already received initial approval from the MassDOT Project Review Committee.”
Scenna recalled that MassDOT has removed funding for screening for rail trail abutters.
“The town is actively assessing its options to provide reasonable fencing and vegetated screening considering MassDOT’s policy change to not pay for fencing or aesthetic screening,” said Scenna. “The project has some dedicated rail trail funding in place to apply towards these concerns, and we will continue to advocate on a weekly basis with MassDOT to restore the original screening plan.”
The Select Board, Finance Committee and the Planning Board each unanimously voted to recommend all three warrant articles related to the Lynnfield Rail Trail.
A lengthy debate
After Mullen and Scenna gave an overview of the three rail trail articles, Spring Town Meeting engaged in a 90-minute debate about the project. The debate lasted longer than the proposed $4.65 million Proposition 2 ½ override (see separate story).
Locksley Road resident Patrick Curley urged Spring Town Meeting to approve the three rail trail warrant articles.
“The three articles are not asking for a single dollar from town voters,” said Curley. “The state has confirmed that more than $6 million is allocated for Lynnfield Rail Trail’s Phase 1. This is going to be a resource for all of us, young and old. It is going to be handicap accessible and it is going to offer safe recreation.”
Huckleberry Road resident Vince Inglese, who is president of the Friends of the Lynnfield Rail Trail, agreed.
“The Lynnfield Rail Trail will help create a safer and healthier community for all ages and abilities,” said Inglese. “Having this centrally located trail right here connecting schools, the town center, the library and key town buildings encourages all to participate in physical activity more often or simply enjoying nature. Further, it has been shown to support mental health and social well-being of a community. Good health is everyone’s major source of wealth. This rail trail, this recreational path, this greenway will be a treasured asset in our community as they are in all communities that have them. The $6 million in construction funding to complete Phase 1 is ready. Let’s get this built as soon as possible for all ages and abilities to enjoy.”
Former Planning Board/Conservation Commission member Alan Dresios, who lives on Bourque Road and is an abutter to the rail trail, urged Spring Town Meeting to oppose the three warrant articles.
“I built my home in the mid-1980s,” said Dresios. “I found a unique Lynnfield that always stood behind their neighbor. When the town was trying to do something to hurt a neighbor, the town’s citizens would rise up to tell the town no, even if the subject was in their best interest. For decades, we supported the little guy. What has changed? Lynnfield has fallen into the ‘me’ and ‘I’ generation. More for me, and our volunteerism is all but gone. We now say put it in the budget and let the town do it. I have noticed this destructive action over the past decade. No more protection from the minority against the majority.”
While Perry Avenue resident Dan Connelly said he has been a “longtime supporter of the rail trail,” he expressed concerns about people parking on the street and Ford Avenue to access it. He said there are 44 children who will on both streets.
“There has been very little information that has come to our street about how parking is going to work,” said Connelly. “There are already ‘No Parking’ signs on one side of Perry Ave. Do you guys have any idea what Perry Ave. looks like right now? I left 20 minutes of 7 p.m. You would not get emergency vehicles through and there were all sorts of violations so people could come tonight. It happens a lot when the middle school gets crowded. We want to be good neighbors to the middle school and vice versa, but you guys kind of pushed it off by saying there are only going to be resident permits only. That’s a little bit nerve-racking for a lot of us on the street. It feels like you are putting a Dunkin’ Donuts drive-thru at the end of our street, and saying don’t worry about it.”
Scenna said the design team and Police Chief Nick Secatore will work with the Perry and Ford Avenue residents to make sure only residents park on both streets.
Connelly pressed Scenna on the parking issue.
“With all due respect, there are so many violations right now,” said Connelly. “Whether it’s you, the police chief or the fire chief, what are you going to do?”
Scenna agreed with Connelly’s viewpoint that more has to be done to address the parking problems.
“We will continue to address it,” said Scenna. “We are committed to not making it any worse than it is today. We are trying to make it better than it is today. We agree there is an issue there. This is not a location where it is going to be advertised for rail trail parking.”
Perry Avenue resident Debbie LaConte urged Spring Town Meeting to reject Articles 6, 7 and 8 due to flooding issues in the area.
“I would not vote on a trail if it were in your backyard,” said LaConte. “I don’t want you to vote on a trail that is in my backyard. I want you to vote ‘No’ today. I want you to think about those 44 children that my neighbor counted. Pretend those 44 children are your children. Do you want your children to have anyone in town, anyone from other towns, walking by your house? It is less than 15-feet from this proposed rail trail. I am not alone. There are 60 other abutters. It is ridiculous that this town is going to vote for something that is only 1.8 miles that leads to nowhere, and 60 abutters have to have this in their backyard.”
Trickett Road resident Mark Preston said he “sympathizes with all of the abutters.”
“There are 4,500 homes in Lynnfield,” said Preston. “Those 60 homes represent 1 percent of the population. I myself am an abutter. I abut Huckleberry Hill and I abut Glen Meadow. Those municipal properties are part of our community, and many of us abut different municipal properties in different ways.”
A number of Spring Town Meeting attendees booed Preston, which prompted Town Moderator Steve Walsh to intervene.
“Let’s refrain from any negative comments towards our neighbors,” said Walsh.
Preston said the rail trail will allow children to safely walk to LMS and LHS from home.
“I got involved with this project 10 years ago for my children who were 5 and 4 at the time,” said Preston. “If this is approved today, my children will be 16- and 17-years-old. My vote is for the children of the future and the Lynnfield of the future.”
Spring Town Meeting approved Article 6 by a 783-324 vote.
Voters passed Article 7 by a 595-475 vote. Spring Town approved Article 8 by a 563-487 vote.