Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Easement Title Diligence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CPC declines due‑diligence funding for Getchell Reservation stairway; ownership and responsibility remain unresolved
Summary
The Community Preservation Committee debated whether to pay for title examinations needed to record an easement for the Carol/Getchell stairway and ultimately voted down a motion to allocate up to $2,000–$4,000 for the work.
The Community Preservation Committee spent the latter part of its Feb. 10 meeting on the Carol/Getchell stairway and a contested title/easement question for the middle section of the trail that connects to the Getchell Reservation.
Heather (CPC staff) summarized correspondence with the city solicitor: the easement plan provided to the committee lacked the documentation the solicitor required to file easements with private property owners. The solicitor requested full title examinations; staff obtained a contractor quote of roughly $300–$400 per property and identified three to five parcels that might need examination, including two private parcels, the church parcel and the cemetery/city parcel — with an additional request from conservation to include the larger Getchell Reservation (an additional estimated $3,400). Heather told members there was remaining survey money from a prior allocation but not enough to cover the full title‑exam cost.
Members debated whether the CPC should fund title examinations as part of its due diligence, or whether the conservation commission or the city should take the lead. Conservation staff and several commissioners said the conservation commission historically had handled related matters and that the CPC’s role should be limited to funding only when ownership and jurisdiction are clear. Others argued that paying for a title exam now would prevent further delay.
A motion on the floor would have authorized $2,000 (with a stated range of $2,000–$4,000 depending on scope) from the CPC administration fund to pay for title exams, conditioned on a commitment from the conservation commission to pursue final documentation and recordation. The motion was seconded and called for a roll‑call vote. The motion did not pass; the chair announced the tally as three in favor and four opposed.
Votes at a glance
- Motion to allocate funds for title examinations (administration fund), contingent on conservation commission commitment: FAILED in roll call (3 in favor, 4 opposed). Recorded votes at the meeting: Bob — yes; Steven — yes; Tom — yes; Christina — no; Dave — no; Mary Anne — no; Karen — no. (As announced by the chair, the motion “does not prevail.”)
- Approval of minutes (Jan. 13, 2025, as modified): PASSED (roll‑call; Christina abstained, others in favor).
- Motion to adjourn: PASSED (unanimous roll call).
Ending
Committee members agreed to present the full context and the motion outcome to the city solicitor and to ask the conservation commission to consider whether it will take the lead on recordation and securing easements. The CPC did not authorize funds for title work at the Feb. 10 meeting and deferred further action pending clearer assignment of responsibility.
