Council Grants Easement For Emergency Access

May 13, 2009 by Josh Morgan

After more than two hours of discussion, the Town Council granted an easement to a developer to construct an emergency access way to its age-restricted housing development.
The easement between the Town of Cheshire and Richmond Glen, an age-restricted development being constructed by Brodach Builders, was approved along party lines, 5-3, with the Democrats supporting the resolution. Republican Councilor James Sima recused himself from the vote since his company has worked with Brodach Builders in the past.
The developer requested the easement on a 50-foot strip of Town-owned land located off the cul-de-sac on Buckland Drive. The easement, which was granted to the developer for $10, would allow an emergency access drive to be constructed that would be gated off and would not be used a thru street or as a secondary entrance to the development. The main entrance to the 41-unit development would be located off Wiese Road.
“The land wasn’t given to the Town as open space,” explained local attorney Anthony Fazzone, who represents Brodach Builders. “This is being proposed as an emergency road only, it’s not a Town road.”
A homeowner’s association would be required to maintain the property and the emergency access drive during snowstorms, Fazzone said. A gate would stop any local traffic from using the road and only emergency vehicles and the homeowner’s association would have access to unlock the gate.
There were rumors circulating that the Town did not even own the land, a rumor that Fazzone stated was false. By rechecking deeds and titles, Fazzone said that there was “absolutely no doubt” in his mind that the land was Town owned.
Democratic Councilor Michael Ecke asked if the easement was not granted, could the development still be built. Fazzone said that without the use of a secondary access for emergency vehicles, it probably would not be built. He said there needed to be another access point in case the entrance off Wiese Road was blocked and emergency personnel could not get into the development.
Richard Roberts, who lives on Buckland Drive, said he was speaking for nine of his neighbors and stated that they were okay with the easement, but there was concern that the access way would be turned into a through street. He said he knows the development would be back there, but wanted assurances that it wouldn’t be connected to Buckland Drive. He also expressed his concern with construction vehicles using the access way to get to the development, but Fazzone said that would not be an issue and construction equipment would only be on Buckland Drive to build the access way. Roberts also hoped to work with the developer with regards to the aesthetics of the gate, that would block public access, and Fazzone said Brodach Builders was amenable to working with the neighbors.
David Schrumm, a former town councilor, said the access way would be 20-feet wide and it wouldn’t be a “cute garden path.” He suggested that the property be deeded to the homeowner’s association to assure that the road is never opened up as a Town street. He also believed the developer should have to pay more than $10 for the easement.
“You are giving town-owned land to a private interest for $10,” Schrumm said. “At least charge more than that. You are giving away a valuable commodity, you should at least charge for it.”
Republican Councilor Tim Slocum said that, by granting the easement, the Town Council was “setting a precedent.” After learning that the easement agreement had slightly changed and he was just reading it for the first time, Slocum moved to table the resolution for two more weeks. Town Attorney Dwight Johnson apologized for the miscommunication, saying his office “dropped the ball” on sending out the documents sooner, as he had believed they were also sent to the town manager. Slocum said he was irritated and “was not satisfied,” since he wasn’t able to prepare for the meeting. Council Chairman Matt Hall had Johnson read the two changes and said he was not inclined to table the motion. The motion failed 3-5, with the Republicans supporting. Slocum later said that his vote against the motion was a “protest vote” because of his frustration with the process.
“The process disturbed me as a resident and a councilor,” Slocum said.
Republican Councilor Tim White had hoped a fiscal impact analysis would have been done on the proposal and wanted to know the fair market value of the piece of land. White said the value of the land should be known before giving it up for $10. White also believed the addition of new housing was coming at a bad time.
“This doesn’t do a service for the Town,” White said. “It’s increasing the supply without much demand. Property values are dropping right now.”
Ecke said charging more for the easement would be “extorting money” from the developer and “that would be wrong.” He believed the development in this economy would be a positive for the Town.
Democratic Councilor Matt Altieri believed the Town Council was stepping into Planning and Zoning and Water Pollution Control Authority areas. He said hearing from residents of Buckland Drive helped him reach his decision and was pleased that the developer and neighbors could work together.
Hall felt it was irrelevant to revisit items and topics that were “thoroughly discussed” by the Town’s other boards and commissions. He felt the Council strayed from its “normal purview” and his affirmative vote was contingent on the right of way never being used as a public road.