Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land And Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney: Boys and Girls Club easement talks next step; committee wants a final plan before any vote
Summary
Attorney Peter Mello said a meeting with the Boys & Girls Club and its counsel is scheduled for next week to confirm where the club proposes to place an access easement at the Keyfield property; committee members asked for a final design, clearer responsibilities, and answers before any easement vote.
Attorney Peter Mello told the Facilities Usage and Planning Subcommittee on May 27 that next-week talks with representatives of the Boys & Girls Club and their attorney will focus on precisely where the club proposes to locate an access easement on school property for the organization’s planned project.
Mello said the location of the proposed easement is the central question; once precise siting is identified, he said, “most of the remaining issues to be addressed will flow from that,” including legal approvals, engineering and how the remainder of the school-owned land could be used. He described the next meeting as an opportunity for detailed, practical discussions and said follow-up items may be required after that meeting.
Several committee members told Mello they support the Boys & Girls Club conceptually but asked for a final, stamped plan and clarified written terms before any committee vote. Member Azak requested drone imagery and a carved-out, clearly staked boundary for the easement to avoid successive plan changes; several members expressed frustration that iterations of the plan have changed over years and asked that responsibilities for construction, maintenance, traffic control and safety be spelled out in writing. Member Gomes asked that the attorney keep the committee fully updated; Member Vega asked that the process be more public and allow committee members access to design details rather than limiting exchanges to attorneys.
Mello said a meeting is scheduled Thursday (June 5) and that he expects to return to the subcommittee with an update; he noted some prior proposals—such as an entrance through the Eagle marker—were later deemed technically infeasible and said those technical constraints also shape where an easement may be possible. Mello and members emphasized that the subcommittee must “dot i’s and cross t’s” before granting any easement and that legal fees and public concern over the timeline have been notable. There was no vote on an easement at the May 27 meeting; the attorney will brief the subcommittee after the June meeting and members said they expect a public, documented proposal before any formal action.
