Supervisors spar over easement; residents ask why trail requirement was dropped
By P.J. D’Annunzio, Staff Writer, The Times
Kennett Township Supervisors chair Michael Elling listens as residents ask how the final terms on a conservation easement for the Schmidt property on MacFarlan Road.
KENNETT — For a second time this year, a township supervisor has accused one of his colleagues of misconduct involving the township’s open space program.
At Monday night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Scudder Stevens alleged misconduct on the part of Board Chairman Michael Elling, during discussions prior to a vote on approval of a conservation easement for the property of Ralph Schmidt on MacFarlan Road.
In a scathing monologue, Stevens detailed what he said he believed to be an attempt on Elling’s part to marginalize and limit Stevens’ involvement in township procedures as well as accomplish goals not apparent to the public eye.
“First, Mike met unilaterally and in secret with Ralph to work out the arrangements for ‘Mike’s deal’ for a conservation easement.” Stevens said. “Mike specifically elected to keep me in the dark about it, although Mike communicated with Bob Hammaker throughout the process. When I confronted Mike about this, Mike specifically told me that I was ‘the enemy,’ and that it would be better if I didn’t know anything about it.”
Stevens further claimed that Elling accepted an appraisal for the property that was not up to professional standards and was over-priced by tens of thousands of dollars. Stevens also said that the agreement for the inclusion of a walking trail on the property between the supervisors, Schmidt, and the North American Land Trust or NALT (the firm brokering the deal), was individually reversed at the last minute by Elling.
Kennett Supervisor Scudder Stevens listens as questions are asked about how a trail requirement was dropped from an easement on MacFarlan Road. He argued that his fellow supervisors violated the state’s Sunshine Act by meeting private and excluding him from decisions.
“I was invited to a meeting ostensibly for the purpose of working out the trail description [to the easement],” Stevens said. “When I arrived, only Mike, Ralph, and Steve Carter from NALT, and I were present; Bob Hammaker was not to be found. Instead of proceeding on the agreed purpose of the meeting, Mike advised me that he and Bob had met and agreed that the public trail was not necessary and that the already passed plan would be re-considered to effectuate that change.”
Stevens then paused from his speech to ask Hammaker if he, in fact, did agree to Elling’s terms in private or if Elling had fabricated the incident. Hammaker responded, saying, “I don’t recall.”
“I responded to Mike’s announcement stating that if Mike and Bob met to discuss and conclude this change, it was in violation of the Sunshine Law,” Stevens said. “This behavior reflects Mike’s lack of integrity by going back on his word and his vote. This approach is a violation of township policy regarding the necessity for inclusion of public trails in township-eased land… it was insulting to Ralph Schmidt, who has been led down a garden path by Mike in this whole process which has been fraught with errors and Mike’s personal whims from the very beginning. It is personally and professionally dishonest to commit to the plan and then unilaterally attempt to change it.”
Stevens concluded his comments by stating that Elling’s alleged actions put Schmidt’s charitable contribution deduction in terms of the Internal Revenue Service in jeopardy as well as putting the township at risk by making it “the laughing stock of the surrounding municipalities by Mike behaving like a loose cannon. [The easement reversal] attempts to accomplish goals only known to Mike and for reasons favoring only him.”
After a brief round of applause from the residents gathered in the township’s meeting room, Elling responded.
“I’m not quite sure what to say to such a broadside,” he said. “I don’t feel it’s in my interest or in anybody’s interest to pick his accusations apart — there are many that are misrepresented. I go back only to the trail easement subject that I did visit with you people once before. When this township had its own land trust…the executive director at that time, who was a lawyer, suggested that we do include trail easements on conservation easements that we were writing. Her point was appealing and it became not quite a requirement but conventional and every easement that was written did include a trail easement.”
“Her general reasoning to do this was…to allow the IRS to accept the conservation easement deduction,” Elling continued. “It was only very recently that I found out that that particular trail easement was indeed not required by the IRS specifically. Toward that end, dealing with Ralph Schmidt, as I have been dealing with Ralph Schmidt on this subject for probably a year, he did not want a trail easement but it was kind of pushed on him by me as I was under the impression that it was required. Since that time I found out that it was not. Ralph Schmidt does want a public trail on his property, he felt that way all along…we have removed the requirement to have a trail and we will probably never have that requirement again on easements that the township spends money for.”
After Elling ended his response, several members of the audience questioned why the township would spend any money at all on a property that could not be used for the public benefit by means of walking trails.
“This $200,000 is going to buy a magnificent view,” Elling answered.
“From the road,” township resident Victor Marini said. “Is there going to be parking along the road, or is it going to be one second as we ride past? You don’t see the advantage of giving more?”
The flurry of public comment continued, with township resident Reisha Freedman asking Elling about the future of trail easements.
“We’re lopping off our arms to say we’ll not have trail systems in the future,” she said. “We’re only investing in the future of you because your interpretation of the law now says that it is not incumbent upon [residents] to give us anything but the view. Why are we not giving our children and grandchildren and the future generations that will move in here something that we are paying for now?”
Despite lengthy public discourse between audience members and Elling, as well as strong opposition to the easement expressed by Stevens and the public gathered at the Township, the vote to accept the easement ultimately passed 2-1, with Stevens voting no.
Elling fiddles while K. T. burns.