CLINTON — During the Clinton Select Board meeting on Jan. 7, 2026, the board heard an informal request from civil engineer David Sadowski, who said he was representing the Bates family in a matter involving a possible right-of-way “up at the dump.”
Sadowski, who said he lives at 7 Cedar Street and is the principal of DJ & Associates, told the board he had been trying for several months to appear before the board and discuss the request.
“The Bateses have done quite a bit of work up in that area,” Sadowski said. “They have a laydown yard in the back section.”
As Sadowski asked to approach the board with maps of the area, Select Board Chair Julie Perusse immediately questioned whether the superintendent of the Department of Public Works had been consulted.
“I had talked with him a little bit about it, but he said I should probably come before the selectmen and see how they feel,” Sadowski said. When Perusse asked what the DPW superintendent’s opinion was, Sadowski replied: “He said he didn’t have an opinion either way, but he didn’t see it as a bad thing.”
Another select board member pointed out the issue had not been included in meeting documents: “There’s nothing in the packet about this, right?”
Sadowski then walked the board through the map, showing the roadway system from South Meadow Road into the landfill area and pointing out features including the gate area and capped section. He explained that the roadway “used to go up into the old rifle range area” and that another section of the road “circles out into the back where the laydown area was.”
Sadowski told the board the family still has a key but they do not feel comfortable accessing the area without clear authority.
“I know the Bateses still have a key to the front, but they’re not comfortable if they ever go in there because they really don’t have authority to do something like that,” Sadowski said. “What they’d like to try to do is over this roadway system establish a right-of-way that they would be able to use…and as part of that, if there was ever any need of repair, new pavement, or anything like that, it could be done by them at their cost, not any cost to the town.”
Sadowski said the Batses would like to be able to access the “piles and other things” they have at the site and use the area to store equipment seasonally, including farming equipment used in town, with winter equipment stored there in the summer and vice versa.
“My company could go up and establish boundaries of the right-of-way and even have something marked off that they’d have to stay within and not stray beyond,” Sadowski said.
Select Board member Mary Dickhaut then asked how often the access would be used, saying, “Would they be using this every day or is this just a sporadic thing?”
“It’s not something that would be used daily,” Sadowski replied. “It would be sporadically, maybe twice a week is what I was told.”
When a board member asked whether the Bateses are already storing anything at the site, Sadowski said “they have soil piles and other things that are up there,” adding that he did not see any equipment during his walk-through.
The board then raised concerns about how the request might overlap with preexisting easements that may already be in the area.
“Didn’t we grant solar, for the solar development up there? Isn’t there another right-of-way already approved?” Select Board member William Connolly asked.
Another board member also referenced an easement related to telephone poles and power lines in the area.
At this point, the discussion shifted toward whether a right-of-way may already exist and whether the issue is recordkeeping.
“So, we’re talking about like maybe poor recordkeeping. Is that what we’re talking about?” Perusse quipped.
Connolly said he would support the right-of-way if it doesn’t interfere with prior approvals.
“I wouldn’t be opposed to it as long as it didn’t intrude on the existing rights that were already granted to the solar people,” Connolly said.
Perusse then outlined next steps: “Some action items coming out of this topic is to check what right-of-ways are currently existing,” Perusse said. Sadowski replied by noting that “there could be an easement by prescription” or “an easement that this was used years ago, but it’s still possible.”
Perusse recommended Sadowski get confirmation from the DPW in writing: “We could just solidify that among our office with something in writing so you’re not caught in a quagmire of record keeping.”
Connolly then cautioned the petitioner that depending on how the right-of-way is structured, the board may not have authority to grant it without voter approval.
“Something of this nature probably requires a town meeting vote,” Connolly said. “I would check with town counsel or with the Bates’ attorney because it’s in the nature of transferring land rights and I don’t believe this board can do it unilaterally.”
As the discussion wrapped up, Perusse summarized the steps going forward once again. “We’re checking to see if there’s any other easements…confirming if there are any current rights of way, checking with town counsel as to whether it has to be a vote at town meeting, and checking with the DPW,” Perusee said.
No formal vote was taken following the discussion.