Residents press town over Colby Crossing plan as road agent outlines bridge demolition and culvert replacement

Road Agent Leo Alcorn presented plans March 18 to replace a failing cross pipe at Colby Crossing, remove the closed bridge deck and regrade/fill the crossing so the town can restore reliable ingress and egress and eliminate a recurring winter plow hazard.

Alcorn told the board the work will largely be done in-house with limited outside costs for demolition equipment, and he said the culvert replacement has been bid and the culvert contractor selected; demolition of the old bridge would involve a short hammer operation and rental heavy equipment. "We're gonna start off with doing some tree clearing... then bring in a hydraulic hammer and have that concrete portion of that bridge taken down," Alcorn said. He also said the town already conducted wetlands and endangered-species surveys and hired a licensed surveyor (Mike McNally) to confirm property lines.

Residents raised historic-preservation and property-rights concerns. Cale Dobbins told the board the structure is nearly 100 years old and suggested the town evaluate how much of the stone abutment could remain in place. Aaron Hamill, who owns adjacent lots, said he was worried that guardrail placement and fill work could encroach on his property and requested clearer plans and boundary confirmation. Hamill said he had previously purchased adjoining railroad property and asked the town to produce historical records before demolition. "If we're gonna tear it down, then I just want some clarification," Hamill said.

Town response and next steps: Alcorn said the town’s survey work shows the town owns the land where the bridge lies and that Pan Am Systems has waived interest in the bridge; he offered to arrange a site visit and a meeting with the surveyor and property owners to resolve boundary and guardrail questions. The board directed staff to coordinate a follow-up site meeting, invite the surveyor and stakeholders, and provide contact information so residents can be updated.

Why it matters: The proposal affects private property boundaries, local historic fabric, hydrology and emergency access. Residents asked the town to be transparent about abutment removal, potential impacts on Meadow(s) Lane access, and the hydrological effects of filling the bridge area. Town staff said DES permits and surveys are in place for the culvert work, but that the bridge demolition/fill requires coordinated planning and public outreach.

What remains unresolved: Specific details about how much existing abutment stone will remain in place, final guardrail placement, and the precise limits of fill were not finalized and will be addressed at a site meeting with the surveyor and public-works staff.