The February workshop of the Hudson Planning Board saw its members tackle the issue of sidewalks in Hudson, an unresolved problem that arose more than once last year.
“The topic of sidewalks: when should we require them, if we should require them, have come up a few times in the context of the plans that were in front of us,” explained Interim Town Planner Jay Minkarah, “Just in general, it’s not uncommon for municipalities to require Sidewalks to be installed. That could be within a residential subdivision or if a site abuts a commercial street. It’s also not uncommon cases to require payment in lieu of building a sidewalk, you build it or you contribute in lieu of… In some cases, you just contribute. There’s a lot of options out there depending on how the town wants to go.”
The town’s 10-year plan includes the construction of more sidewalks with state assistance.
“I think with non-residential units on an arterial or collector roadway, you’ve got to do a sidewalk.” said Board member James Crowley, who recalled a case where the developer did not want to build a sidewalk, and where the Planning Board found it impossible to require an “in lieu of” payment. “We had no mechanism to collect funds, that’s something that’s still got to be worked out.”
Chair Tim Malley raised the possibility of wording some way to collect money from property owners unwilling to install a sidewalk when required. He also wanted to clarify what the process was for taking over a sidewalk after competition of new development, noting that the Department of Public Works would have to put time and money into overseeing anything under the responsibility of Hudson.
“I basically did research on different towns throughout the state that have different sidewalk funds or regulations with some of the options that they’re providing to their residents,” said Board member Victor Oates. “I kind of weaved together a structured layout.”
He gave Manchester as an example, where the property owner covers half the cost of building a sidewalk with the town covering the rest, with a reimbursement cap. Oates also wanted clear goals for what Hudson wanted for a more extensive network over the next decade.
“I’m a big supporter of having a sidewalk fund so we could collect money instead of giving waivers to developers,” said Board member Ed Van der Veen, who supported even longer-term thinking from the town. “We’ve got about 20 years’ worth of work in front of us.”
He wanted to close several “gaps” in relatively high pedestrian areas, including the intersection of Derry Street and Elm Street.
“People walk that all the time, in the street. Basically, walking through the intersection,” said Van der Veen. “You’ve got apartment complexes, you got kids walking to schools, you’ve got a Starbucks that’s going to go in there, and nobody can walk on a sidewalk through that intersection.”
There were questions on how much developers should contribute to any sidewalk account. Most suggestions included a contribution system that would avoid relying on local taxpayers.
“I don’t think having a developer give money to a sidewalk fund is any burden whatsoever,” said Oates. “You either provide it and build your home, or don’t provide it, and build over there.”
While most members expressed a reluctance to shift the burden onto the town, Board member Tim Lyko urged members to at least consider future warrant articles as a “fastest way” to build sidewalk sections in high-traffic areas without waiting for a fund to fill up.
“I don’t know if I want to make builders do sidewalks as they’re building,” he argued. “If we’re going to do it, I’d rather save up money and do it all at once.”
In the end, the Planning Board did not agree on a single idea, although they expressed overwhelming support for expanding the sidewalk network in the coming years.
