Valley Railroad Seeks Parking Improvements at Deep River Station
The Valley Railroad Company's proposal for improvements to a parking lot at its Deep River Train Station to enable additional boat charters faced backlash from town residents at the Deep River Planning & Zoning Commission's (PZC) regular meeting on June 21. The company leases the property at 152 River Street from the state.
About 100 residents attended, with most who spoke voicing their opposition, and there were also eight letters submitted to the commission expressing concerns with the proposal.
“The proposal that we brought forward tonight is three years in the making. We’ve taken our time with this to try and put together a proposal that made sense for the railroad, made sense for the neighborhood, and made sense for the town,” said Valley Railroad Company Vice President Robert Bradway.
The additional parking spaces will allow seasonal boat charter patrons to park at 152 River Street instead of requiring them to park in Essex and ride the Essex Steam Train to board the boat charter at Valley Railroad's dock.
“Valley Railroad is seeking this amendment to the existing permit for the purpose of fulfilling a need for smaller charters that are affordable to prospective patrons,” said Tom Metcalf, Deep River resident and engineer for the Valley Railroad Company.
“For charters of 75 [patrons] and under the train shuttle is cost prohibitive and prevents a significant number of people from being able to partake in this unique enjoyment of the Connecticut River via river boat charter,” added Metcalf.
The new plan would result in a total of 49 parking spaces (8 of which are employee spots) used to allow a maximum of one excursion a day (with up to 75 passengers) for three days out of the week, most commonly Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
“We have no intention of there being overflow parking that goes out into the streets, onto any public property, private property, or down at Deep River Landing,” said Bradway.
The charters would be limited to working hours between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. with each trip lasting approximately 3 hours and expected to return to the dock no later than 10 p.m., “barring unforeseen weather or mechanical challenges,” said Metcalf.
The proposal is a stand-alone application for the Valley Railroad and is not associated with the Lace Factory, which is across river Street from the station.
Residents Share Concerns with PZC
At the Deep River PZC meeting on June 21, the main concerns raised by residents were the additional traffic and overloading the Deep River Landing area and local streets with cars, as well as worries about the frequency of the operation. Bradway addressed most of these issues and, while it was not stated in the proposal, he offered to add wording to ensure one or two people would be employed to direct traffic after the charter’s return, helping to keep the additional traffic under control. However, residents were still overwhelmingly against the PZC approving the railroad’s proposal.
“We take a lot of care in the communities we go through,” said Bradway. “I hope you don’t view me as an enemy, I certainly don’t feel like one.”
Metcalf was hired “not only for his engineering expertise but because he was a resident of the town and we wanted somebody who could recognize what the sensitivities are here in town so that we could be more responsive with the proposal,” said Bradway.
Registered Soil Scientist and Professional Wetland Scientist Richard Snarski wrote a letter after reviewing the proposal stating that debris should be removed from the inland wetland area, that the tree area along the wetlands should remain, and no vegetation should be removed. He also wrote that the proposed drainage improvement alongside the parking area would protect the inland wetland area from runoff caused by the proposed parking area.
There were eight additional letters read into the record, all of which voiced opposition to the proposed plan. While none of the letters were read in their entirety, Commission Member Sara Denegre said all written submissions were opposed to the proposal.
Fred Jordan, resident of Deep River and an employee of the Valley Railroad Company, spoke in favor of the railroad’s proposal as a means of supporting local business, stating “if we don’t support our local businesses and allow others to support local businesses that keeps real estate values down.”
Following Jordan’s statement in favor of the railroad’s additional parking, the remaining Deep River residents in attendance who addressed the commission did so with strong suggestions and reasons for it to vote down the proposal.
Deep River resident Christopher Fish requested that a traffic study be done and asked what for details on the route the railroad planned to use to redirect traffic.
“Your commitment to keeping everything nice and quiet and calm and contained is very commendable,” said Fish. “How do we know this promise outlives your tenure?”
Fish also asked how the proposal would benefit the town and whether or not it would affect taxes and if so, in what way. The commission stated that the railroad representatives would have the opportunity to provide answers at the next PZC meeting.
Andrea Isaacs, owner of the Lace Factory in Deep River and a town resident, questioned the length of the Valley Railroad lease, with Bradway confirming it has approximately 7 or 8 years left on the existing lease with the option for a pair of 25 year renewals.
Bob Ghinder, a former employee of the Essex Steam Train and is also a Deep River resident, voiced concern about how the parking would be enforced and about the railroad’s relationship with the Lace Factory, more specifically that they have shared their parking lots in the past.
“I know that the Lace Factory is not part of this, but I know you have an existing relationship with them...so I’m wondering what you’re going to do to prevent people from coming to your boat charters from making the reverse arrangement with the Lace Factory and have them park over there because the parking should just be limited to those 49 spots and nothing else,” said Ghinder.
Bradway clarified for the Courier that the railroad and the Lace Factory have no business relationship or parking arrangement.
Many residents expressed concerns of the additional traffic that would arise if this proposal is approved and Deep River resident Augusta Ferretti suggested that speed bumps be added as well as enforcement of the current speed limit on the surrounding roads.
“Currently, our street has a 30 mile-an-hour speed limit, which is really, really way too high for the amount of children who are playing on our streets,” said Ferretti.
This discussion prompted the question of the cost for police work and who would be picking up that cost by Deep River resident Gail Gallagher.
“What is it going to cost us for police work, manpower, for the police to be down there to monitor it?” asked Gallagher. “What is that going to cost the town, who’s going to pick up that cost?”
“It [Deep River] has always been a beautiful, quiet, unique, quaint little town,” added Gallagher. “It’s beautiful here, we want to keep it beautiful, we want to keep it clean, we want to keep it safe.”
The Next Steps
Other concerns raised by citizens referred to the surface water runoff, drainage accommodations, the potential for flooding, and all the effects of the potential project on the inland wetland area. These concerns, addressed in the letter by Snarski, will be discussed at the Inland Wetlands Commission meeting at Deep River Town Hall, 174 Main Street, on Thursday, July 12 at 7:30 p.m.
“There will be no decision made on the railroad this evening...Inland Wetlands [Commission] hasn’t weighed in yet on the proposal, so we’ll be waiting for that before the commission can take any action,” said PZC Chairman Bruce Edgerton, who along with his wife, Janet Edgerton, recused himself from the meeting because of their connection to the Valley Railroad Company.
Discussion of the Valley Railroad Company’s proposal will continue at the Deep River PZC’s next regular meeting at Town Hall, 174 Main Street, on Thursday, July 19 at 7 p.m.
Editor's note: This story has been edited to correct multiple errors in the original print edition.