Northfield group weighs river-path options, agrees to gather cost estimates

NORTHFIELD — Members of a Northfield river-path working group on an evening meeting discussed how to spend a limited pool of town funds to build an accessible riverside path and agreed to gather updated cost estimates before choosing between competing alignments.

The group said the town still shows “slightly less than $450,000” in budgeted funds that had been labeled as ARPA but were absorbed into surplus, prompting members to consider a “plan B” that would spend a portion on local trail work if outside projects — including possible removal of the Cross Brothers Dam — proceed and alter site conditions.

Discussion centered on three segments identified in prior designs. Section A would run from the senior-center parking lot to the pedestrian bridge; Section B would follow the riverside toward the railroad and then back parallel to the tracks; Section C was described by members as the most expensive option because it would require extensive retaining walls and bridge work. Several participants said Section C was low priority given the group’s roughly $49,000 allotment for an initial project and earlier ballpark figures that put a single section at about $50,000 and section C in the $250,000 range.

Speakers raised practical obstacles for each alignment: parking pressure at the senior center and nearby Green Mountain Apartments, property-ownership questions for the former TDS building (sold to Martha Mahan), and the need to avoid placing fill in regulated floodplain areas. One participant said the laundromat site recently became “permanent green space,” affecting options for nearby parking.

Security and neighbor concerns surfaced repeatedly. Members recalled repeated vandalism to a fence at the apartment complex and discussed mitigations including fencing, solar lighting and motion-sensor cameras. According to attendees, Police Chief Gomez said cameras would be “no problem at all” as a deterrent.

The group also discussed surface options for accessibility: a stabilizing grid (STAYMAT or similar) topped with compacted stone dust or a packed stone-dust topcoat that wheelchair users and strollers can roll on. Several participants noted those surfaces require periodic maintenance and that some contractor designs previously reviewed (Timber and Stone drawings) did not show additional fences or privacy screening that residents had requested.

Permitting questions prompted members to seek outside guidance. The group reported contacting the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission; attendees said planner Rose Watts advised that a municipal flood-hazard permit might be required if work enters the floodplain but that ‘‘open space and recreation’’ uses can be exempt, and warned that adding fill could be prohibited unless net-neutral accounting is provided.

Next steps set by the working group were procedural: assemble recent drawings, contact local contractors for updated quotes (members suggested local firms and named contractor James Parent as a local resource), confirm what property owners must sign off on, and ask the police chief and regional planners for clarifications on cameras and permitting. The working group agreed to bring cost estimates and permitting guidance back to the next monthly meeting before selecting which section to pursue.