Roane County abandons county interest in portion of Castle Cove Road after neighbors dispute; quitclaim deeds removed

Roane County commissioners voted this month to abandon the county's right to build a county road across parts of Castle Cove Road and deleted provisions authorizing quitclaim deeds to private owners, following prolonged public comment and competing claims about who may use the lane.

The measures, which were amended on the commission floor, instruct the county to abandon its easement interest and remove the quitclaim-deed language from two draft deeds described in the resolutions. The first amended resolution, concerning property conveyed to Robert and Donna Kaczmarek, passed 12'3 after a roll-call vote. A second, similar resolution tied to Joseph Denny passed 11'4.

County Attorney remarks to the commission stressed the limited legal value of a county-issued quitclaim deed: “A quitclaim deed is just a document that says, I don't think I own this, but I'm going to record it,” the attorney said at the meeting, adding that such deeds typically do not change other owners' rights and can have the legal effect of shortening the time other owners have to file suit if a deed recipient then excludes others.

The debate followed public testimony from property owners who had cleared the lane and invested in access. Sarah Buackley, who said she and her husband own three adjoining lots and spent roughly $57,000 clearing access, told commissioners they had excavated about 1,200 feet of road and secured three paid water taps for their properties. “We did the work. We did all the due diligence that was required,” she said, pressing commissioners not to abandon the easement in a way that could impede future access.

Joseph Denny, who said his lot was landlocked before the recent clearing, urged commissioners to preserve his access. "The only access I have is off this easement," he told the commission during public comment. Commissioners and the county attorney repeatedly clarified that the county's recorded interest historically was an easement to construct a county road on plats recorded decades ago by developer A.J. DiPietrio, and that the county had not exercised that right.

Commissioners who supported the amendments said abandoning the county's interest removes future confusion over county responsibilities and liabilities where a road was never built. Opponents warned that removing quitclaim language could leave private owners in uncertain civil positions and risk protracted litigation over access.

Commissioner Brackett moved the first resolution to abandon county interest and strike the quitclaim; Commissioner Henderson seconded the motion. After a roll-call vote, the amendment and the resolution as amended carried 12'3. The commission then considered and amended a second, similar resolution for the adjacent parcel to remove quitclaim language and abandon the county interest; that amendment carried, and the final vote on the resolution was 11'4 in favor.

The county attorney advised the commission that, practically speaking, quitclaim deeds in this context provide little additional property right for the county to convey, because the county does not hold record title to the underlying roadbed. He warned commissioners that a recorded quitclaim, if used to assert exclusive possession by a private party, can shorten the period for other owners to pursue adverse-possession claims from 20 years to seven.

Commissioners said they will consult further with the county attorney about the appropriate wording and whether additional steps are needed to clarify lot owners' rights. For now, the commission's action removes the county from the role of conveying fee title in this case and keeps the plat-based easements available to private lot owners who claim rights under the original subdivision plat.

Proponents and opponents continued to press their positions after the vote. Supporters said abandoning the county interest removes an administrative burden and reduces county exposure to future suits. Opponents said the change could make access less certain for some landowners and could incentivize private litigation.

The commission recorded the roll-call votes on the first amended resolution as follows: Brackett (yes), Cunningham (yes), Duff (yes), Gann (yes), Goss (yes), Hamilton (yes), Henderson (yes), Hester (yes), Hooks (yes), Kirby (yes), Parks (yes), Wilson (yes); Lehman (no), Ferguson (no), Barry (no). The second amended resolution recorded 11 yes and 4 no votes.

The commission's action resolved a months-long neighborhood dispute that had surfaced in public comment and planning discussions; commissioners said they would work with the attorney's office to ensure the final paperwork reflects the votes and to clarify the limits of county authority.