Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Electrical topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board approves National Grid handhole for Lot 24 on Ridge Road
Summary
The Select Board voted to approve National Grid’s request to install a single underground handhole (labeled 1‑11) to serve Lot 24 on Ridge Road; nearby residents and town staff asked questions about timing and siting during a brief public hearing.
National Grid won Select Board approval Sept. 2 to install one underground handhole, labeled 1‑11, to provide secondary electrical service to Lot 24 on Ridge Road. The company’s representative said the new handhole will intercept existing underground secondary conductors and conduit already under the roadway to serve a new house the buyer plans to build.
The matter was presented at a public hearing attended by the National Grid representative, a construction contractor who said he bought the lot in 2014, and several neighbors. The contractor, Joe Gasco, said he put a well in 2014 and is preparing to build. National Grid said the handhole is a small fiberglass or concrete box that stores the secondary connection; there are no poles at that location because the neighborhood uses entirely underground service.
Board members confirmed the highway superintendent had reviewed the site and reported no concerns. A neighbor asked about the timing and visible disturbance; National Grid and a town official said the installation will be in the grass and not involve a pole. Board members moved, seconded and voted to accept the National Grid petition; the motion carried by voice vote.
Why it matters: the installation allows the buyer to connect new construction to the town’s underground electrical network without adding overhead poles. The public hearing was brief and focused on technical siting and timing rather than policy implications.
Board direction and next steps: National Grid will schedule the work and coordinate with the town and the buyer on final siting and any required permits or conservation conditions. No further formal actions were taken at the meeting.
Local context: Select Board members noted the lot had been subdivided and permitted in the 1990s and observed that development timelines can extend for years; no changes to local utility or land‑use policy were proposed.
