Woodstone case argued in Appellate Court

Bethel cedes controversial road to developer

By FRITZ MAYER

BETHEL, NY — The matter of public access to the Toronto Reservoir through a gated community moved a step closer to resolution on April 29 when arguments were presented to the New York State Appellate Court.

The point being argued was whether Judge Robert Sackett incorrectly issued a decision, which basically ruled that the public had no right to traverse land owned by the Woodstone Companies.

The lawyer for Alliance Energy, which now owns the reservoir, argued that the judge overreached because the narrow issue before him in February 2007 was whether two county residents could join a lawsuit filed against Woodstone Companies by Smallwood resident Bob Barrett.

Barrett’s lawyer sided with the Alliance lawyer, while the lawyer for Woodstone argued that the judge’s decision was correct.

The court will issue an opinion in the next couple of months, and according to one observor in the courtroom, the consensus among those who watched the procedings was that the entire matter will be sent back to the lower court for a full trial.

But even a full trial on the matter of the right of the public to access the reservoir won’t necessarily end the matter, because that verdict could be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and then the United States Supreme Court.

With millions of dollars of property sales at stake for the Woodstone Companies, and a license to operate hydro-electric plants at stake for Alliance, it seems possible that the process will drag on for some time to come.

That’s a prospect that did not sit well with the board of the Town of Bethel because needed repairs to Town Road 62, which leads to the gate and the disputed access to the reservoir, and a section of Pine Grove Road, will be quite expensive. The roads, which are used primarily by construction vehicles going into the Woodstone gated communities, have deteriorated over the past couple of years.

Therefore, the board negotiated a deal with Woodstone whereby the town would abandon Town Road 62, in exchange for guarantees by Woodstone that the company would make upgrades to the road and to a portion of Pine Grove Road.

Details of the agreement were released at the town meeting on April 25. Town attorney Robert McEwan said that after abandoning the road, it could be closed to the public.

That brought objections from several members of the audience. “Why are you in such a rush to do this tonight, when the case will be in court next week?” asked Barrett.

Board member Richard Crumley said that this was the best deal for town residents. The town, he said, could not afford to fix the road. “The concern of this board is not to pay for a road that goes nowhere,” he added.

Supervisor Dan Sturm said the agreement also provides that, should the courts order Woodstone to allow members of the public to have access to the reservoir, Woodstone would still be responsible for maintaining the roads to town specifications, and could not use the abandoned portion of the road to deny access to the reservoir. He said this was included in the written contract with Woodstone.

Some members of the audience were skeptical, citing a deal in 2005 in which Woodstone offered to give its private road to the town.

Councilman Robert Blaise said that deal didn’t go through because the town did not keep up its end, a statement that was repeated by Crumley.

Meanwhile, the gate that keeps the public from the reservoir remains locked and closed to the general public.