Danbury City committee approves two‑year extension of Happy Trails Farm lease amid debate on public access and maintenance

An ad hoc Danbury City committee voted to extend the Happy Trails Farm lease by two years after a discussion about lease term, public access and maintenance obligations.

The committee meeting, called to order by the chair at 6:31 p.m., focused on a red‑lined lease draft that corporation counsel said had been prepared with an initial five‑year request but which city attorneys and the mayor’s office recommended changing to a two‑year extension. Corporation counsel said the change would be reflected in Section 1.03 of the draft and would cover both residency and operation of the equine boarding business.

The move to a shorter, two‑year term was described by counsel as a way to preserve the city’s flexibility; counsel said an option to unilaterally renew would remove bargaining leverage at the end of the term. "I think it is better for us to retain the flexibility of having at the end of the next two‑year term, have both parties sit down and decide whether they want to continue it," corporation counsel said.

The farm operator urged the committee to protect the operation’s future. The speaker — listed in the meeting record as Mary Rickard — described the property as "a historical farm" and said she and her family had cared for it for years, asking that the tenant be given "first option to renew it" if the council limits the term to two years. The operator also said the site draws substantial public interest, saying "there has to be over 1000 a year" who stop by or photograph the farm.

Committee members and ex‑officio participants stressed the budgetary value of the tenant’s work maintaining the 16‑acre site. Several speakers noted that because the tenant performs mowing, invasive species control and routine upkeep, the city avoids those recurring operational costs. Counsel clarified the allocation of major responsibilities: the city remains responsible for capital and structural repairs (for example, if a roof or well fails), while the tenant handles day‑to‑day maintenance and must carry liability insurance under the lease.

The committee also aired concerns about public access. Counsel confirmed that under the tenant’s current exclusive right of possession, the public does not have access to the property during the lease term; members discussed the tradeoffs between public access and safety/liability given that the site operates as a working horse boarding facility.

A council member moved to approve the extension, with motion language calling for a lease ending Dec. 31, 2028 and authorizing the mayor to execute the agreement subject to a report and recommendation from the planning commission and any ministerial edits by corporation counsel. The motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote; the chair announced the motion carries.

Next steps identified in the meeting record include corporation counsel preparing the revised draft with the corrected dates and the mayor’s office coordinating any required planning‑commission review and additional departmental analysis of park connectivity and future uses. The committee did not adopt an option to renew or a right of first refusal; counsel and multiple members indicated both parties would be free to negotiate further at the end of the extension.