A rose may be a rose, but as the developers of TanStone Development, TanStone Group LLC, are finding out, a rose also has thorns. Doctor Pat Rose, the owner of the land immediately to the west of the TanStone Development has become a thorn in the side of TanStone’s plans by persistently reminding the city and TanStone that their actions have resulted in her losing the easement access to her property from Forsythe Road.
Rose’s property runs from Highway 76 south fronting the old Forsythe Road on its eastern edge. A water slide and parking lot occupies the property at the top of the hill on the south end. About half way down the hill on the property there is a residential complex, containing Rose’s home and some rental cottages.
The eastern edge of her property was separated from the old Forsythe Road by a narrow band of land through which she obtained an access easement. She had used that easement to access her property directly from Forsythe Road for about ten years until, without warning, on the morning of Oct. 2, 2007, when, as she went out to pick up her newspaper, she discovered that Forsythe Road had been destroyed.
Subsequent events have disclosed that the road was destroyed by TanStone without any written agreement with the city to do so and that the purpose of destroying the road was so that it could be rebuilt and realigned hundreds of feet to the east. The immediate effect was to render the access easement Rose had to exit and enter her property off of Forsythe Road useless.
The only remaining access to Rose’s property became a narrow steep road leading from her residential complex up through a water slide parking lot at the south end of her property. Rose and her attorney, Stephen Bradford, have been working with the developer and the city, both privately and publically, to get a satisfactory resolution to the easement issue since.
The record of the public meetings with the city involving the TanStone project since the destruction of Forsythe Road will show a pattern. The actual issue comes up for discussion, in this case the approval of the Development Agreement between the developer and the city. During the discussion of the specific issue the issue of the easement will be raised either by Bradford or one of the aldermen. In this case, Alderwoman Sandra Williams expressed concern about the Rose easement.
The board was told, by both Bradford and a representative of TanStone, Randy Winski, one of its partners, that late the week, prior to the board’s meeting, the developer had submitted three different easement options to Rose for consideration. Bradford pointed out that although they were still evaluating them that, in his opinion, they did not seem to be practical or fair in terms of the circumstances. Winski’s statements contradicted that opinion.
One of the easement options would require building a long steep road across Roses property. When City Engineer David Miller was asked about that option he said that anything could be done if you had enough money and indicated that while it might be practical in certain situations he did not feel this was one of those situations.
Another option would give Rose a 30 foot easement to Forsythe Road from her property going hundreds of yards through as yet undesignated parking lots and other public areas of the TanStone Project located between Rose’s property and the relocated Forsythe Road. Further the proposed easement had a restriction that it can only be used for residential purposes even though Rose’s land is commercial. None of the other easement choices had a similar restriction.
City Attorney Paul D. Link again stated his opinion that all the developer was required to do was grant an easement to replace the easement that was taken away so that the property would not be landlocked. He again reiterated his belief that the easement issue was a civil matter between Rose and the developer. He also recommended that the board not require the developer to do something that is not required by law.
Although the Development Agreement was approved on its first reading it was not without a warning from the board. At the request of Alderman Stephen Marshall, City Engineer David Miller pointed out that in a “worse case” scenario, if a final agreement is not worked out, the city could condemn the new road under construction in the development and keep the old road’s right of way. Alderman Marshall advised Winski that the board has been told over and over that they are working on an agreement; that the board’s patience was coming to an end and suggested that they had to get an agreement.
In the normal course of events, the Development Agreement will come up for its second reading at the board’s first June meeting on June 9 and will be on the Consent Agenda.
Furnished courtesy of Tri-Lakes Tribune, a free newspaper published and distributed three times weekly, Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Please call 417-336-NEWS (6397) for classified and display advertising opportunities.
