Chris Lyman, lead sub‑engineer from Howard Stein Hudson, gave the Select Board a multi-part update on the Main Street bridge design, permitting and associated green‑infrastructure work funded through an MVP grant.

Lyman said MassDOT (Chapter 85) returned review comments after Howard Stein Hudson submitted plans in 2024; a new MassDOT bridge‑design guide issued after the team's original design has prompted comments — chiefly the agency’s request for an additional geotechnical boring and larger wing walls for scour protection. The consultants told the board they believe the current final design meets prior standards and that imposing the new guide’s larger wing‑wall and foundation requirements could materially increase local costs. The engineers said they are working with MassDOT to resolve comments and expect to submit revised final bridge plans for review in May; those plans would be stamped and suitable for going out to bid.

On permits, engineers reported they have an Order of Conditions from the Hampden Conservation Commission (recorded in November), approvals from the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the latter to permit dredging associated with abutment work), and they added endangered‑species mitigation language and a requirement for a wildlife biologist during construction if needed. Lyman said the team has prepared a draft consensual order of takings for a limited permanent easement needed for bank stabilization adjacent to a private property near the bridge; that document will be refined by the project's right‑of‑way attorney and, if finalized, the town will sponsor a warrant article at the annual meeting in May to authorize the easement and record it at Hampden County Registry of Deeds.

The firm also reviewed a separate, MVP‑required green‑infrastructure (GI) concept intended to reduce roadway runoff that currently discharges into the brook. The GI proposal would capture water from catch basins on Glendale and Scantic Roads and route it into a grassed infiltration area, reducing oil and road‑salt loading to the brook and potentially reducing peak flow. Engineers emphasized that the GI is a separate, optional implementation project: the MVP grant allows the bridge design to be funded on the condition that a conceptual GI design is part of the grant scope, but the town would decide later whether to fund construction of the GI.

The consultants said they are completing community‑outreach videos (three short films) to explain the problem and the proposed natural‑based solutions; those will be posted on the project website and should be available before the annual town meeting. They reiterated that final stamped bridge plans, a construction estimate and contract specifications are expected after MassDOT comments are resolved and the revised final design is submitted.

Select Board members asked whether replacing the bridge is the only way to address the flooding and whether alternatives (additional culverts or a parallel culvert) could lower cost; engineers said modern regulatory standards tend to require a single structure sized to at least 1.0–1.2 bankfull width and that undersized culverts or multiple smaller structures are often not permitted because of debris risks and hydraulic performance. Costs for a full bridge replacement were described as substantial; the engineers said the project will be submitted for state aid and that towns often receive funding for bridge projects when they are well‑packaged and queued with other work.

Ending: The board asked staff to present the right‑of‑way warrant language when available. Engineering deliverables expected this spring include revised Chapter‑85 responses to MassDOT, final stamped bridge plans for bid, a consensual order of takings for the easement, and the publicity videos required by MVP.