Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Disposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees ask for clearer conservation easement details before disposing Hodges property
Summary
Trustees heard introductory information on the proposed disposal of the Hodges property (Marshall Road) and asked staff for more detail about the conservation easement terms, historic-structure assessment, parcel carving and sale contingencies ahead of a potential March disposal vote.
The Open Space Board of Trustees received an introductory staff memo on Feb. 11 about the proposed disposal of the Hodges property on Marshall Road and requested more detail on conservation-easement terms and site-specific conditions before any disposal vote.
Former trustee Karen Holwig asked whether the original reasons for acquiring the land—scenic preservation, corridor protection and connections to nearby preserved properties—still apply and urged the board to consider water-flow mapping, floodway status and historic value of the red sandstone house before demolition or disposal.
OSMP staff (Dan) responded that the current approach is to seek the board's initial approval to begin a disposal process subject to retaining a conservation easement and to selling at fair market value once a buyer is identified. Staff said the city must also follow purchasing rules to hire a broker (RFP) and that a standard conservation-easement template developed with the city attorney's office could be shared in draft form for trustee review.
Trustees repeatedly asked for more detail about what the conservation easement would specifically protect (scenic attributes and other typical easement subjects), whether the residence and its occupants would be carved out, and what historic-preservation review had been completed. Staff said they would provide a fuller memo and outline of the easement subject matters for the March meeting and could include assessments of building historic value.
Several trustees expressed that seeing more substantive terms or a template—even if not a final easement draft—would be important to make a disposal decision. Chair Harmon Zuckerman and others noted the department could also adopt a multi-step approach (introductory memo, matters from the department, then deliberation/decision) if the board prefers a longer timeline.
No motion was taken to dispose of the property at this meeting; staff said they would return with more details and that any eventual sale would remain subject to conservation-easement conditions, fair market valuation and council approval where applicable.
