BRATTLEBORO

Weather

View 7-day forecast

Weather sponsored by

Your support powers every story we tell. Please help us reach our year-end goal.

Donate Now

Your support powers every story we tell. We're committed to producing high-quality, fact-based news and information that gives you the facts in this community we call home. If our work has helped you stay informed, take action, or feel more connected to Windham County – please give now to help us reach our goal of raising $150,000 by December 31st.

BRATTLEBORO

Weather

View 7-day forecast

Weather sponsored by

Your support powers every story we tell. Please help us reach our year-end goal.

Donate Now

Your support powers every story we tell. We're committed to producing high-quality, fact-based news and information that gives you the facts in this community we call home. If our work has helped you stay informed, take action, or feel more connected to Windham County – please give now to help us reach our goal of raising $150,000 by December 31st.

Board seeks information on proposed park-and-ride project

DUMMERSTON — The Selectboard want more information from the state and the joint Putney/Dummerston Design Review Board on the reasoning behind certain features of the Park-and-Ride on track for construction at the town line.

Selectboard member Joe Cook raised the issue at a Sept. 4 meeting, saying he took issue with the facility's planned 82 parking spots and the fact that it includes lighting and is paved.

“Don't get me wrong: I'm all for Park-and-Rides; they make more and more sense down the road as energy prices go up, but I see how many people use the Park-and-Ride at the Covered Bridge, for instance, and I just can't imagine we'd have anything approaching 82 vehicles using this Park-and-Ride for the foreseeable future,” he said.

Cook said he thought a Park-and-Ride at that location offering 30 spots would make more sense, though he speculated there might only be “two cars” using the facility.

“I think it would behoove us, and I make the motion, that the board express its concerns over the scope of this project I understand it will be lighted; it will produce some visual pollution, I would think our Energy Committee would have something to say about that,” he said.

He also said of the paving, “I really don't understand the need for that. This is a rural community and I would think our Conservation Committee would have something to say about that.”

Selectboard member Steve Glabach said he would not support a motion to seek reasoning for these design decisions.

“I think it should be lit and should be paved, and I think if you're going do it you need to do it at a scale big enough so that you're not going back in two years,” he said.

He also noted that “gravel is a maintenance nightmare, particularly with rainfall like we had the other day where you get 2{1/2} inches of rain in two hours. Your maintenance costs could be ridiculous.”

Glabach added: “It would be nice to see some type of preliminary information as to the need for this, I guess, but it's pretty conveniently located with the exit to the freeway, with the Current buses going by. I won't support [the motion],” he said.

Board member Bill Holiday seconded the motion, but stressed that he did so only to get answers on design and environmental impact - “not to negate [the project] at this time.”

The measure passed 4-1, and Cook will write a letter to the DRB seeking design rationale.

Subscribe to receive free email delivery of The Commons!