Salisbury committee finds evidence of historic sidewalks, pushes to reconnect Lakeville and Salisbury

The Salisbury Pathways Committee reported on Dec. 12, 2016, that exploratory probing found physical evidence of a historic sidewalk on the south‑east side of Main Street (Route 44/41), strengthening the committee’s plan to reconnect the Lakeville and Salisbury villages.

The discovery follows a year of planning, a state Road Safety Audit, and earlier committee work assessing right-of-way. Pat Hackett, who led the probing with committee member Chris Williams, presented a written summary saying investigators “found the evidence of pathways along the south‑east side of Main Street in Salisbury at the same locations as seen on the 1930’s DOT RT44 corridor maps,” including “an inch to two inches of rounded quartzite with Stockbridge Marble fragments,” material not native to the immediate area.

Why it matters: the gap in sidewalks along Route 44/41 includes a roughly 500‑foot segment near the Salisbury Central School where students would have to walk in the roadway to reach the town fire station emergency shelter. Committee members say reopening or reviving the historic beds could be a faster, lower‑cost way to reestablish pedestrian continuity while longer engineering work (for example culvert reconstruction) is planned.

The committee has a modest town allocation to start. Katherine ("Kitty") Kiefer told members that the Board of Selectmen allocated $12,000 in the town budget to the Pathways Committee; the committee examined two usage scenarios. Pat Hackett presented material‑only costs for a 4‑foot‑wide stone‑dust path at $3.71 per linear foot that would stretch about 3,232 feet if only materials were used, versus a fully subcontracted scenario (materials plus labor) that would cover roughly 1,843 feet with the same $12,000. The committee favored using town crew labor where feasible and agreed Pat would explore permit and right‑of‑way requirements with CTDOT.

The committee also confronted administrative requirements. In July Pat reported CTDOT had advised a $2 million liability insurance requirement for exploratory work in the state right of way; Pat was to determine whether existing town insurance would cover committee probing. After coordination the town’s counsel/officials indicated committee probing could proceed with a permit and town coverage; Pat and Chris then conducted the probing and delivered their report to the committee and to CTDOT.

Committee members stressed coordination with CTDOT paving and safety efforts. Chris Williams has been in contact with CTDOT District 4 about culvert and pipe work near Meadow Street; members asked staff and Selectmen to coordinate any local pathway work with DOT repaving so striping and shoulder widths can be aligned.

Public reaction: Two property owners raised concerns about communication and asked the committee to consider alternatives and broader safety impacts; committee members responded that minutes and RSA materials are publicly posted and that no construction would proceed without permitting and public notification.

Next steps: the committee resolved to post the probing report and the CTDOT Road Safety Audit on the town website, to seek unit‑cost information from the contractor already selected for related town work, and to pursue phased work that can begin with the available $12,000 while seeking additional funding sources. If permits and design allow, the committee plans to use town crew labor and limited subcontracting to maximize the length of pathway advanced in the coming construction season.

Clarifying details taken from committee records and attachments: the committee recorded the $12,000 allocation by the Selectmen and the two cost scenarios presented by Pat Hackett (material-only at $3.71/ft yielding ~3,232 ft; subcontracted work yielding ~1,843 ft). The probing report and a 1934 aerial map used as evidence are included in the committee’s December 12, 2016 meeting materials.

The committee scheduled follow‑up items: obtaining permits (if required), finalizing any town‑crew work scope, and seeking further funding or reimbursements that might be available through state programs discussed in committee packet materials.

Ending: The committee’s work now blends short‑term, visible construction options with longer technical needs (culvert work, drainage and ADA compliance) identified in the CTDOT Road Safety Audit; a phased approach plus coordination with DOT and Selectmen will determine the schedule for on‑the‑ground work.