Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tom Nevers Bike Path topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tom Nevers path advances in planning discussions; committee warned takings process could be lengthy
Summary
Committee members and town staff discussed the Tom Nevers multi-use path, easement ownership and the takings process, and noted utility poles and state-owned strips that could affect design and timeline.
Town staff and the Roads and Right-of-Way Committee reviewed the status of the Tom Nevers multi-use path during the June 17 meeting, focusing on ownership of the right-of-way, likely easements and the steps required for any taking.
Tracy, land specialist, said the road layout totals 60 feet and that the town owns the middle 40 feet in fee while the outer 10-foot strips on each side remain state-owned. "The total layout is 60 feet," Tracy said, describing the property ownership split and adding that the state is expected to convey its portions to the town as part of the project process.
Committee members noted that some property owners had assumed the full width was already town-owned and that perception has created concerns when design options require temporary construction easements or permanent easements for utility relocation. Tracy described three design options previously prepared and said town meeting had registered positive votes on the project; she said town staff and the project team were moving toward selecting an option but that community members would have opportunities to review details before takings proceed.
Project constraints identified at the meeting included telephone poles and guy wires along the road. Committee members explained that pole relocation is expensive, and designers try to avoid relocations where possible; in some cases property owners could elect to pay to relocate poles to avoid a permanent taking. Tracy also reminded the committee that formal takings require a multi-step process: a taking plan, appraisals and acquisition procedures before construction bids and work.
On public outreach, staff said they had met multiple times with homeowners and the town arborist to discuss tree impacts and design choices. The committee agreed that future meetings should focus on explaining which option was selected and the anticipated sequence of takings and construction steps.
Next steps: staff to circulate the selected option and the related taking plan when available; committee members to notify affected homeowners and to request detailed maps and taking plans prior to any appraisal or acquisition action.
