Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges county suspended rules to favor Hutchinson family in easement dispute
Summary
A resident accused the St. Louis County board of suspending rules and holding an improper process that benefitted the Hutchinson family, said the easement exchange lacked public purpose and urged transparency; the board did not respond on the record in this session.
A St. Louis County resident told the board during public comment that county officials improperly suspended meeting rules and approved a resolution that favored a private party, accusing the county of effectively taking private property for the benefit of the Hutchinson family.
The resident said state statute governs management of tax-forfeiture land and that there is no state deed or evidence justifying a private easement across what the resident called the Cochise property. The commenter said attorneys were present in a prior session but that the county attorney was not notified and described the earlier proceeding as a "secret meeting" that produced an illegal claim of taking.
The resident urged board members to review recordings and documents, recommending an 18-minute video on "Chester Cohen Junior" YouTube and a longer Hutchinson Cartway video, and cited an October 12 resolution as demonstrating a need for greater transparency and accountability. They said the exchange "didn't provide a public purpose," claimed Brian Hutchinson has not completed the easement exchange, and described a November 9 Cartway hearing as "a sham designed to look like the county board wasn't arbitrary or capricious."
The resident also said access had been temporarily closed to remove gravel they say the Hutchinson family placed across wetlands and asked the board to read a letter from the property owner, saying the alleged actions constituted "fraud" against the resident and neighbors. The board did not provide a response on the record during the public participation segment.
No formal motion, vote or staff response appears in the public comment record provided. The resident repeatedly called for transparency and for the board to review the cited materials and correspondence to assess whether prior actions complied with state statute and public-purpose requirements.
