Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheffield neighbors press selectmen over Buns Road parcel; drainage easement and auction process questioned
Summary
Residents urged the Sheffield Selectmen to prioritize road and drainage repairs over creating a small park on a 4.5‑acre tax‑taken parcel, and raised concerns that auctioning the land could threaten existing drainage easements; selectmen said the easement remains but buyers must comply with its terms.
Chair opened discussion of a 4.5‑acre parcel on Buns Road that the town took for unpaid taxes and that had been proposed as a small park. After notifying abutters and receiving widespread negative feedback, Selectman Bob (who had introduced the idea) said he recommended auctioning the parcel and returning it to the tax rolls.
Molly Djavan, who said she had followed the property since it was taken on Feb. 22, 2021, told the board she had seen inconsistent information about the parcel’s status and asked whether abutters would have any formal right to purchase it before an auction. Molly said in part, “I've actually been watching this property since it was first taken February 22nd, 2021,” and asked why it had not appeared on previous auction lists.
The board answered that state rules govern tax takings and auctions and that abutters do not receive a right of first refusal; the town must give all buyers the same opportunity under the state process. Town staff explained the land was deemed low‑value due to use restrictions and that the state’s review and approval process determines timing for an auction.
Several abutters raised practical concerns if the parcel were sold. A longtime resident described the narrow, poorly maintained private road and urged the town to spend available funds on road repairs rather than creating a park near Buns Road. Linda Hunker, an abutter, asked whether a purchaser could gain road frontage or otherwise attach the lot to adjacent property; staff said a 30‑foot access strip exists and that portions of the lot may be buildable depending on setbacks and zoning.
Brian Cider, a nearby homeowner, warned that altering the property could change the engineered drainage pattern and said, “If they bulldoze it and make a flat field, all of the drainage for 100 different properties now have nowhere to go.” Selectmen responded that the town retains the drainage easement and that the easement must be respected: “The easement is there and restricts changes that would interfere with drainage,” a board member said, adding that the buyer would be responsible for understanding easement obligations.
Some residents asked who would enforce easement maintenance over time. The board said responsibility generally follows the deed and that easement terms and enforcement can be clarified in deed language; residents were advised to consult the Registry of Deeds and the assessor’s office for the recorded legal description and easement language.
After discussion, Selectman Bob withdrew the park proposal and the board removed the item from the work list. The board confirmed the property will proceed through the state takings/auction process and that the town cannot guarantee timing for the next auction, but that auction notices will be publicly posted when scheduled.
What’s next: The town plans to include the parcel in a future auction once the state process is complete; abutters were encouraged to review deed records and monitor town auction announcements. The Selectmen said they will raise road and drainage concerns with the highway superintendent during follow‑up.
