Salmon Brook Street Homeowners Object to Sidewalk Project

Several Granby  residents who won’t be voting in favor the $11.4 million capital improvements referendum on Jan. 17 are those who would be affected by the proposed sidewalks project on Salmon Brook Street.

The project, according to a town press release, calls for the sidewalk network in Granby to connect the town center with Salmon Brook Park in an effort to improve pedestrian safety. The total cost of the project would be $330,000, with a net to the town of $255,000 after a state grant is factored in.

But homeowners along the street who would be affected by the project have recently expressed their objections, stating that they do not want to be responsible for the sidewalk’s maintenance and that the town did not provide them with adequate notice.

A Granby town ordinance requires that owners or occupants have to clear sidewalks in front of their property within eight hours after a weather event such as a snow or ice storm. First Selectman John Adams has stated that the town would maintain the new sidewalks, including keeping them clear of snow and ice, for a period of five years.

But 80-year-old Peter Avery, of 251 Salmon Brook St., takes little comfort from the town’s assurances.

“And what happens [after five years]? I’m 150 percent against it,” said Avery said. “I’ve got to shovel the God dang thing. I’m 80 years old. I can’t cut that mustard.”  

Avery also questioned the necessity of the sidewalks, stating that he invites people walking along Salmon Brook Street onto his property to remain safe.

William Haslun, of 233 Salmon Brook St., agreed with Avery that the sidewalks are an unnecessary expense.

“I’ve lived here 45 years, and I can see maybe five people who walk to Salmon Brook Park this time of year,” said Haslun, adding that, at 110 feet, he has one of the smaller frontages along the street. “Some people have 300-feet frontages. That’s an imposition to ask to plow the sidewalk every time it snows.”

Haslun, who said he will not vote on the referendum because he is moving in the spring, believed that a compromise could be reached, however.

Specifically, Haslun said that affected residents might be inclined to accept the sidewalks if the maintenance requirement was suspended during the winter months.

Sharon Alleman, of 231 Salmon Brook St., says that, despite being one of the more outspoken and sharpest critics of the sidewalk project, this is not a case of NIMBY (not in my back yard). If not for the maintenance issue, Alleman said that she would be “thrilled” to have the sidewalks installed in front of her home.

“I’d say, ‘I can’t wait to walk my dog in front of my house,’” she said.

The five-year grace period, if the town follows through on it, isn’t enough for Alleman, who said that she plans on living with her husband in their home for another 45 years.

“Our problem is that [Salmon Brook Street] is a state highway and plows come up and down the road, throwing snow back on the sidewalk every hour,” Alleman said. “The plows go by on  a regular basis. It’s an undue burden on the people who live here.”

That burden extends financially to the affected residents, Alleman said, because most, if not all of them, are elderly and cannot shovel snow on their own. All of which means that, when the five-year grace period ends, the residents will have to hire someone to do it for them, creating a hidden tax on just that small group of people.

Homeowners on Salmon Brook Street would be more amenable to the sidewalk project if the town had approached them earlier, according to Alleman.

Furthermore, Alleman said that if the town was really concerned about the safety of the pedestrians who walk along Salmon Brook Street, then it should pick up the tab for maintaining the sidewalks.

Adams disagreed.

“That’s not what virtually any town in Connecticut does,” he said. “The fact that we take over the maintenance for five years is substantially more than most towns would do.”

Furthermore, the concern for pedestrian safety overrides the issue of sidewalk maintenance.

“We feel its reasonable to want it for foot traffic and more of it,” he said. “It’s simply not safe. Someone is going to get hurt and we don’t want that to happen.”

Despite the affected residents’ concerns, Adams believed that some compromise could be reached.

“We’re certainly going to talk to residents and see what we can do to eliminate their concerns,” Adams said. “I think they may be jumping to conclusions. Hopefully we can come to some sort of arrangement.”

One thing that Adams was adamant about, however, was that the town would not foot the bill for maintaining the sidewalks in perpetuity.

“We’re certainly willing to work with them to come to some accommodation, but we also have to consider the sidewalk responsibility of other owners,” Adams said, noting that property owners along Route 189 north of the town center had a five-year grace period like the one currently proposed. “It becomes an issue of fairness. We install the sidewalks at the town’s cost. At some point in time, the upkeep should become the responsibility of the property owners. I’m not willing to put the town’s position in perpetuity to maintaining the sidewalks, particularly as we continue to expand the sidewalk network.

“To suggest we should do something different would put us in a difficult position. It would be unfair.”

As for the notice issue, Adams said that the projects, including the proposed sidewalk installation, have all been discussed in public forums many times over the course of several months.

“We don’t normally go forward with public meetings without a source of funding,” Adams said. “We would not have placed the sidewalks in the referendum if we didn’t feel like it was a worthwhile project.”

As it stands, however, Alleman said that she would not be voting in favor of the whole package of projects, 11 in total, specifically because of the sidewalks.

“I’m going to vote ‘No,’” she said. “I’m telling my daughter and her friends to vote ‘No,’ as well. They should break out this particular project for a vote.”