64°
NORTHBRIDGE, Mass. – If all goes as planned, the two-mile, $7.6 million Sutton Street reconstruction project will begin next fall or in the spring of 2014.
About 25 Sutton Street residents and town officials attended a public hearing held Tuesday night by the state Department of Transportation to discuss the project's design.
Architectural drawings of the preliminary design were set up on easels for residents to view, and questions were encouraged.
Residents asked about the railroad crossing, which will not be affected by the construction; sidewalks, which will be widened; shoulders on the side of the road where there aren’t sidewalks, which will be four feet wide; and the five-way intersection at Sutton and Hill streets and Pollard Road, which will become a four-way intersection.
Project manager John Schoenfeld said 137 property easements are needed for the project to proceed. It is the town’s responsibility to acquire those easements, noted Jerry Doherty from Mass DOT.
“Without them, funding is jeopardized… if they’re not ready to go, funding will go to another community,’’ he said.
Funded by the town, the engineering firm of AECON designed the project. Of the $7.6 million cost of construction, the town will pay $1 million for expansion of water and sewer lines.
“This has been a long time coming, over 15 years,’’ said Town Manager Theodore Kozak. He said the necessary language for easements will be on the Oct. 23 Fall Town Meeting warrant, and all residents affected will be contacted.
Department of Public Works Director James Shuris said the reconstruction is a key element in the town’s road program.
Though it will take about two years to complete, “it will be a showcase,’’ he said.
Comments (19)
I guess it will be up to the Voter's.
I must have missed the hearing notice -- did not see anything in the mail for those who may need to provide easements. How can we see and comment on the design. Plus what considerations for keeping big rigs off the street rated dangerous for trucks by the DOT. A the Safety Committee meeting, it was said this would be address at the hearing.
It's not actually dangerous for the trucks. The issue is the added damage that trucks are doing to the road. Frankly, the road is so shot that it really doesn't matter at this point.
Reconstruction with proper drainage will make the road structurally sound again. There is ostensibly no way to ban truck traffic on this road, a major path between Routes 122 & 146. The main objection is that residents whose houses are close to the road don't like truck traffic because of the noise and vibrations. I feel their pain - I am in the same situation on a different street, but this is not a valid reason to ban truck traffic. One could argue that the road does not meet proper standards for the traffic volume, and that would be correct, but it did when it was built. Years ago, the town tried to ban trucks on Hill Street for resident comfort, but it didn't hold up. Turns out, truck drivers don't like Hill Street anyway, because it's hilly!
I am really upset about the Town's communication process for a project that has such an impact on the residents of Sutton Street and the surrounding developments. There should have been a "Mailing" sent to every single one of the affected abutters so we had the opportunity to put this on our calendars. Residents don't get down to the town hall to look at the bulletin board, nor do we regularly watch the Northbridge tv stations.
Why were we not contacted directly via a hardcopy mailing to our mailboxes?
I am very impacted by this project, living on lower Sutton Street in the most densely populated area of that road, and would have appreciated being notified directly.
Let me say that when the town does not make an effort to make sure that the residents on Sutton Street are not effectively communicated to about important meetings like this, it appears that there is much to hide....and that you didn't want participation in, or questions from, the residents.
You should hold another meeting and this time --- send a mailing!
The communication process for that particular meeting was under the direction of MassDOT. (The same agency that is in charge of our perpetual bridge replacement project, which probably does not inspire optimism.)
If the easements are voted at TM, affected property owners will receive a letter.
AND, if the $1 million (which is only for sewer and water pipe work) is voted for, then the project will supposedly proceed. If the $1 million is NOT approved, I believe the project will be kaput. The DOT, wisely, will not do the job knowing it might have to be torn up a few years later.
Did you not the article on this very site you post on reagrding the meeting?
It was published 09/17/2012.
"Let me say that when the town does not make an effort to make sure that the residents on Sutton Street are not effectively communicated to about important meetings like this, it appears that there is much to hide....and that you didn't want participation in, or questions from, the residents."
What an odd statement about a project that will improve one of the worst roads in town. Hide what? Jimmy Hoffa's remains???
Once again, someone who expects the town to do everything for them.
This was no secret, 7+ million dollar project that the town is only on the hook for a 1 million. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
I don't live on Sutton St, nor do I have cable (so no access to NCTV) yet, I still knew about it.
Please tell us what else the town needs to do for you...
Obviously, you were not a JFK fan...
Nancy,
If you may want an another possible horror story to potentially digest, reach out to some of the Mitchell advocate's that are trying to propose a new DPW for the Town for $1.8 Million Dollars. Save all those that are struggling economically suggestively $6 Million Dollars from the Town's recent, 8.5 Million Dollar plus DPW study.
We recently may have been advised by a Town Official the Garage Doors on a DPW Garage would potentially cost '$20,000 dollars' a door. We have several estiminates of similar type DPW Garage Door's costing between $3,000 and $4,000 dollars a door?
'Very Potentially Strange'! Unless the $20,000 door may have Gold and possible Silver in them?
Can you imagine that?
The Mitchell DPW Facility advocates are respectfully requesting the support of all Northbridge Taxpayers, Great Citizens, at the Fall Town Meeting. To support Warrant Article #17, a $1.8 Million Dollar DPW Proposal and at the Fall Ballot Box. "Thank You"!
GROOOOOOOOOOAAAN,
Jug-master-J, is every article on this site gonna circle back to the DPW?
Two years back the town had the potential to buy a building down in back of the China Pacific and backing the RR line, for just around 800K, and at the town meeting it was shot down, mostly due to naysayers who were more inclined to insult the owner of the building, than to think about what may best economically solve the problem of getting our DPW workers out of the dilapidated buildings they are in along the river (which floods). Retrofitting this building, which was zoned industrial light, would have not cost 1 million dollars, and would have been the best choice for the town. Now we are looking at upwards of 2 million for this much needed DPW facility.
I'm still (as you can see) fuming over what appeared to be a hostile tea party take-over of that particular Town Meeting --- that riled up the residents for no good reason, and lost us a building that was (compared to what is now being proposed) a steal.
Look for much higher taxes to support this effort, as much needed as the DPW is. We lost a good deal a couple years back over the objections of fearmongers, naysayers and haters.
N
The actual number voted by the BPCC was for 2.5 million to purchase and renovate the four existing buildings. It was an improvement over the existing DPW site but it was not a very good location nor a good alternative.
It was 4 buildings on a very tight site near wetlands and it was questionable if a salt shed of adequate size could be placed on it. The access to each building was also very tight and the town would have had to evict existing businesses along with losing all tax revenue.
There are better alternatives.
'Thank You'
I seemed to remembered only small parts of that possible prior DPW plan, 'thank you', very much for bringing us all up to speed on that potential older plan.
Thanks for the info, I know the Mitchell DPW plan is not $1 Million Dollars but $1.8 Million Dollars. May be more reasonable to the good Taxpayers of Northbridge.
The $1.8 Million Dollar's I think is a lot better then the $8.5 Million Dollar potential plus plan study, that was recently released to the Town.
Plus 'strange' we did a study for a DPW on Fletcher Street suggestively not even knowing the true price of the clean up the site? Just maybe thinking the Town should have received a validated price to clean up Fletcher Street as a primary plan or step one?
Juggy,
It amazing how you tout how cheap the Mitchell Plan is yet you leave out "trivial" little things like the fact that it does nothing about the demo and clean-up of the current site. You make it seem like an apples to apples comparison yet you are comparing walnuts to watermelons.
FWIW Nancy, it had been fairly well publicized for a couple of weeks. I would suggest calling the MADOT DIstrict 3 office up on Belmont St in Worc. they may allow you to see it.
Guy,
I am not against the clean up, but I would prefer we clean it up like Grafton did on their Main Street in Grafton across from the old Mill that burnt down. (Nice Park they have there now?)
Bring EPA/DEP, Town Manager, Town Planner on board for some table talk meeting's with them, and our local State and Federal Rep's, and Grants for the clean up, like Grafton did from my understanding?
Seems to make sense build at the WWTPlant, correct RR Crossing, new Bigger Salt-Shed, Washbay, a Drive through DPW if they want one? (Mitchell Plan) Then attain the Grants or what not to clean up Fletcher Street? I know you will disagree but just my two cents.
Guy, something may be way off with the Garage Door's $3500-$4000., advocates probable estiminates, potentially compared to HKT's suggestive $20,000 for a door, if correct??
I hope your maybe not innocently unknowingly carrying The Water for some other entity who/they may be sitting back snickering, in comfort? Plus maybe may of took advantage of your obvious heightened endeavoring emotion, and your undaunting support for the Fletcher Street site, to their possible suggestive advantage to maybe feather their own possible nest's or nest??
Are the doors the same size? Are they of the same quality? DOes the more expensive one include an electric opener and the cheap one does not? Is one done with prevailing wage labor and the other one not?
Plenty of plausible reasons.
Correct me if I am wrong but as I recall the design for the WWTP that went to the voters was not the drive-through design? I sem to remember that they determined that it was too tight to fit in that way. Plenty of plausible reasons as to why you are comparing walnuts to watermelons.
I have told ewe before and I will tell ewe again............I am an independent person not a sheep like ewe.
"Correct me if I am wrong but as I recall the design of the WWTP that went to the voters was not the drive-through design?"
You are wrong.
Jack,
Was it that they couldn't do the drive through design if they stuck with the current driveway layout then? I remember a scenario where the drive through design didn't fit.
Our design always had the drive through. Neal met with DPW personnel on site and measured the turning radius of the vehicles in the area to be used to be sure.
The current design has been modifided to fit in either location but the doors could be put back into the design if it was determined to use the WWTP site.
I apologize to other posters for continuing the DPW discussion under someone else's post but wish to correct misconceptions or wrong statements and will continue to do so.
Edit: the driveway was moved when we had a site visit with the engineer of the P & W railroad. The existing entry was dangerous and it made more sense to move it both for accessibility to the area and for an improved RR crossing. It did not have to be relocated to meet the design of the new building.
Where can others who could not attend the meeting get drafts of the proposed plan?