Council tables vote on emergency‑access easement for proposed Village at Tayo condominiums after safety concerns

Coventry — The council on Jan. 13 paused action on a proposed emergency‑access and utility easement tied to the Village at Tayo condominium project after a lengthy exchange over public‑safety risks and maintenance.

Planning staff described the project: the developer proposes to replace four houses with eight condominium buildings (16 units) on a 2.2‑acre site and requested a narrow, emergency‑only easement (about 1,450 square feet) across a sliver of town‑owned land that would connect the condominium road with Kenray Drive so fire apparatus would not need to back up on the site. Planning Director Doug McClain said the easement would be limited to emergency use and maintained by the condominium association.

Fire and public‑safety officials expressed strong reservations about the design and operability of an emergency-only route that would function as a second egress but that, in some options, could be gated, unpaved or otherwise constrained. Chief Brown (vice‑president Brown spoke earlier as council vice president) argued that gates and easements of the type proposed had failed in other local examples and that a single primary access point with an unreliable secondary route could risk entrapment in an emergency. "One way in and one way out is not a good recipe when it comes to developing something," a council safety speaker said.

The developer’s team said its traffic study found that converting Kenray Drive to regular two‑way traffic would be unsafe due to sight‑line and width limitations and that the emergency easement was a compromise to give fire crews another access route. Planning staff and the town solicitor discussed options for conditional approvals tied to planning commission action and potential design changes from the applicant’s traffic engineer.

Outcome: After debate about paving versus grass, gates, signage and maintenance responsibilities, the council voted to table the easement and to return the matter to the Jan. 27 council meeting, asking the applicant to work with planners and the town to present a revised record that addresses safety and maintenance concerns.

Practical note: Planning staff said the easement footprint was modest and that any final agreement would include indemnification language, maintenance responsibilities assigned to the condominium association and conditions enforced through the planning process. The tabling gives the planning commission and applicant time to revisit traffic‑engineer analyses and refine the proposal before the council takes a final vote.