.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS APPEARED IN THE RECORD May 29, 2002

Where is public interest in Darrah Road debate?

WARNING: Need I remind you that I have a personal stake in the outcome of the Darrah Road controversy, which, once again, is back in the news? Furthermore, so as to not distract your attention from the issues, I've decided to avoid mentioning names.

On the plus side, the Town of Brome Lake council has called for a "public consultation meeting" on June 3 in Foster at 7.30. immediately before the monthly Town council meeting. As to why in Foster and not in West Brome where the road happens to be located - I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer. On the down side, the motion is aimed at closing down a yet- to- be-announced section of Darrah Road. This is the very same road that was described in the Village of Brome resolution as a "country road frequently used by riders, walkers and others."

The May 7, 2001 resolution was passed as a friendly recommendation to TBL to maintain its right-of-way for the benefit of those who use the lane. So why would TBL council want to close down a trail that has been used for decades by the public and long before any of the current homes were built on Darrah Road? For example, just last weekend close to 20 horseback riders on their healthy and attractive horses passed through, to and from Brome Village, while accompanied by a handful of horse drawn buggies. Officially, I gather it is part and parcel of the general policy to dispose of unused roads that go nowhere and thereby save on maintenance costs while reducing the risks of liability.

Just in case anyone believes that Darrah Road falls in the category of unused and abandoned country lanes that go nowhere, this is simply not the case. The lane in question, once open to vehicle traffic in the old days, happens to be located directly between the two graveled sections of Darrah Road which continues into the municipality of Brome Village under the street name of Morin Hill. Paradoxically, just last year, both municipalities graveled the last 600' or so of the lane right up to where the road resumes in Brome Village so as to enable access to a handsome new house that was built in TBL territory.

For those who missed the opening chapter of this ongoing saga, it all began on March 5, 2001 when the TBL council passed resolution 01-074 authorizing the mayor and assistant clerk to sell the old country lane to a Darrah Road resident.

As I pointed out in my May 30, 2001 column, the resolution failed to indicate what section of the road/lane was to be sold, the length and the price. To make matters worse, at the time resolution 01-074 was passed, the two other residents who owned land adjacent to the lane had not been notified.

In fairness to accuracy, I should point out that during the one of the heated question periods, a 9 or 12 -signature petition from my Darrah Road neighbors supporting the sale of the lane was exhibited by council. Furthermore, in a letter to the editor, the resident who was to acquire the lane, expressed his surprise regarding my apparent contradictory views between the Darrah Road petition and the 516-signature- anti-snowmobile trail petition which he argued was only representative of "less than nine per cent of the population." I believe his point was that I failed to give proportional heed to the Darrah Road petition which, he contended, represented "more than 90 per cent of the homeowners on that road who were in favor of the sale in order to ensure that further developments would never take place." Just in case the Darrah Road petition is considered by council as a persuasive argument to close down the lane and ultimately bar access to the public, this is a good time as ever to comment on it. The Darrah Road signatories were concerned by the potential consequences if ever our little "cul de sac" road was to be opened to throughway traffic due to "further developments" taking place beyond the present turnabout. However, in no way do I interpret their petition as a concerted protest against the continued use of the lane by the other adjacent landowners or by the public, which is what the real issues are all about. If I misjudged their intentions, I'm sure they will correct me at the public meeting or by way of letter(s) to the editor.

Lets call a spade a spade. There is no contradiction between, (a) someone acquiring the lane and wanting to protect the residents against " further developments from taking place" and (b) riders, walkers and others having " access by way of a servitude. In both instances, there would be no need to scrap the turnabout and open the lane to cars and trucks.

Back in April 2001 when I first learned of the pending sale, my neighbor was kind enough to offer me access to the lane if and when he purchased it from the town. My position was as clear then as it is today. Considering the history of the lane, the idea of having to depend on anyone's permission, was simply ludicrous. Failing a servitude, even the most kindhearted permission can always be revoked on a simple whim and suddenly a walker, rider or cross-country skier becomes a trespasser. Furthermore, if ever the lane were resold, no written or verbal permission would be binding on a new owner and by then it would be too late to do anything about it. The servitude proposition is nothing new - I relayed it to our mayor by e-mail as far back as April 10, 2001.

Why would our council not want to require a servitude in the event it insisted on disposing of the lane? Contrary to the beautiful Coldbrook walking path in Knowlton, which winds its way through the properties of dozens of community-minded citizens in Knowlton, the town already owns the right of way on Darrah Road. As for the legal requirements in the event of a sale, all it would take is a servitude in favor of the Town Hall property.

Under the circumstances, why would it be in the best public interest for the town to close the lane to the public or to dispose of it without maintaining a right-of-way? It is difficult to imagine that liability considerations are an important consideration seeing that, as far back as I can remember, the town never felt the need to place a warning sign at both ends of the lane. As for saving on maintenance costs - there haven't been any, at least not since I moved to Darrah Road in 1988.