Oak Ridge council votes 3–2 to close 8‑foot Ashford trail easement after contested public hearing

After almost three hours of public comment during the Town of Oak Ridge meeting on Feb. 5, the council voted 3–2 to close, vacate and remove from dedication an 8‑foot‑wide public trail easement running along the western boundary of Lots 8–10 of the Ashford subdivision (867.28 feet as filed in Plat Book 213, page 42).

Residents from Ashford and neighboring Bear Creek told the council the easement would thread behind private yards, dead‑end in the subdivision and present safety, privacy and liability problems for families who bought large lots expecting privacy. Chris Charette said the alignment "runs through privately owned residential lots" and described the planned trail as effectively turning the neighborhood into a destination rather than a continuous connector. Several neighbors said tree preservation and topography made building the trail in place impractical.

By contrast, members of the town’s Mountain‑to‑Sea Trail (MST) committee, Friends of the MST and other supporters urged the council to keep the easement. MST chair Anne Steele noted the planning and zoning board had recommended retaining the easement and said the segment is intended to connect newly completed and upcoming trail segments and trailheads; committee members said the easement’s 8‑foot width is workable and that trail construction can be designed to preserve trees and private buffers.

Former mayor and longtime resident Jim Kinnaman argued the easement is a town asset guided by multiple town planning documents and said closing it could undermine the town’s long‑term trail network. Kinnaman recommended retaining the easement and warned that removing it could invite legal challenges.

Council discussion referenced the town’s pedestrian and land‑use plans, the planning and zoning board recommendation, whether the easement had been adequately communicated to homeowners during subdivision review, and the technical fit of an 8‑foot trail through the parcel. Councilor(s) supporting closing said the easement had not been incorporated into the subdivision design and that the path as recorded does not now meet policy criteria for pedestrian connectivity; supporters also emphasized nearby homeowners’ unanimous opposition at planning meetings.

The motion to close and vacate the easement invoked N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A‑299 procedures and incorporated the council’s findings that the closure was not contrary to the public interest; the vote was 3 in favor, 2 opposed. Opponents said the decision risks a precedent of surrendering permanent public easements and urged the town to seek mitigation measures (buffers, fencing or a redesigned alignment) instead of vacating public rights.

What’s next: Council’s order to close the easement will be recorded consistent with statutory requirements unless reversed by the council or stayed by a court action. Several speakers indicated intent to pursue legal review; others asked that the council document the factual findings used to justify the closing in the public record.