Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Byram board over private Ashley Park Drive, mayor says city will not use tax dollars to repair it
Summary
Residents of Ashley Park urged the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to act after a developer left a private subdivision road in disrepair. The board pledged to investigate covenants, easements and ownership but said it would not pay taxpayer money to fix a privately owned street.
Denuela Swinman, an Ashley Park resident, told the Mayor and Board of Aldermen that the developer of her subdivision promised repairs years ago and ‘‘left that subdivision’’ in 2023, leaving homeowners to contend with a failing Ashley Park Drive. Swinman said she reviewed a 2015 letter from the developer and that many homeowners had not seen a written contract describing maintenance obligations.
The complaint prompted extended discussion among aldermen, city staff and residents about who owns and must maintain the road. City staff explained the city’s standard practice: when a subdivision reaches roughly 80% build‑out, the developer must bring roads up to municipal standards before the city will accept dedication and assume maintenance.
City staff said the developer initially presented the road as private, which limited municipal inspection and acceptance, and that the city requires engineering upgrades and final acceptance before public maintenance begins. The board also noted the presence of recorded covenants that may allow the homeowners association or the developer to dedicate streets to the city when the city agrees to accept them.
Board members and the city attorney discussed legal avenues cited by staff — including code enforcement, declaring a public nuisance, and placing a municipal lien to recover costs if a private owner fails to act — but cautioned each option has limits. One official flagged the practical risk of pursuing litigation if a developer has no recoverable assets or has dismissed bonding obligations.
The mayor (chair) told residents the city would review records and meet with them and their counsel but was explicit about fiscal limits: "I'm not gonna use taxpayers' money on the road," the chair said, adding that if the city can hold the developer responsible it will seek to do so. The board asked staff to pull the original development agreements, easements and minutes related to initial approvals and said staff would follow up with homeowners.
The board did not take any formal action requiring city funding during the meeting. The city clerk later said the board would consider the matter further and that the minutes or future agenda would record any directed follow‑up steps.
What happens next: staff will compile the recorded covenants, any recorded dedication/right‑of‑way documents and the city's inspection records; the board suggested a meeting between residents, the city attorney and homeowners to clarify ownership and viable remedies.
