Make a Plan Now, Not Later, for Apple Street Access Road

To the Editor,

On Tuesday, Essex residents received a letter regarding Article 22 on the Annual Town Meeting warrant.  I’d like to clarify several assertions made in that letter.  I am speaking here solely as a resident, not on behalf of the Board of Selectmen.  These views are my own. 

Regarding Article 22, many will recall that several years ago the Town exercised its right of first refusal to purchase 30 Apple Street.  We voted to acquire the property primarily due to structural concerns with the Landing Road bridge leading to the transfer station.  The intent was to construct an access road across that land so repairs to the bridge, if and when needed, could be completed safely. 

The letter opposing Article 22 suggests there is no urgency to address the bridge, that we should delay action until a final decision is made about the future of the Apple Street property, and that recycled asphalt product (RAP) should not be used.  A cost of $100,000 is cited, though that figure is speculative, as final data is still pending. 

I believe there is a need to plan now for this access road.  There are legitimate concerns about the culvert beneath Landing Road, which may be less stable than it appears. The visible hump in the roadway indicates stress.  Because this is an arch culvert, soil subsidence along its sides can significantly weaken the structure.  An engineering study currently underway by Weston & Sampson should provide more clarity in the coming weeks. 

Simply driving across the property without constructing a proper road is not a realistic solution.  The traffic involved includes heavy trash and recycling trucks, DPW equipment, all town vehicles accessing the fuel depot (including police and fire), and residents using the transfer station.  This approach would be unworkable during winter and mud season, when the ground cannot support heavy loads. 

The current plan places the road along the edge of the property, following the most direct and least intrusive route. 

We purchased 30 Apple Street to address access and culvert-related issues.  Now that the possibility of locating an elementary school on the site has been removed, it is time to use the property for its intended purpose.  After the culvert is repaired, we can—and surely will—have lengthy and contentious discussions about the site’s long-term use. 

Finally, the letter’s authors oppose the use of RAP.  I share some of those concerns.  While RAP is not classified as hazardous by the DEP, I would prefer to avoid its use if possible. That said, rejecting RAP does not require rejecting the project.  The road could be built with gravel instead, and the article can be amended accordingly.  Let’s not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. 

I respect the concerns raised by the letter’s authors, many of whom are friends, but I would regret passing up a practical solution to a real infrastructure problem.  We can build an access road that preserves the integrity of the Apple Street property while addressing a critical need facing our community. 

Annie Cameron 

Essex