City Council
Official Statement Regarding Sabin's Pasture


Around August 12th, a timber harvesting operation began on property owned by the Aja/Zorzi Family known locally as Sabin’s Pasture. The large scale removal of trees caught most people, including city officials, by complete surprise. The result has been the renewal of tension between those who wish to conserve the property for public use and the wishes of private landowners to use their property as they see fit.

Unfortunately, this tension most recently resulted in acts of vandalism. Such behavior is outrageous and has no place in our community. We must all let cooler heads prevail. As city officials and residents, we understand the concerns and frustrations that the logging has generated. We also understand the frustrations of the property owners in trying to realize a return on their property investment. We call on all involved to work together cooperatively to find solutions.

Almost immediately after the logging operation started, City officials received several frantic phone calls from citizen urging, “Do something, stop this from happening.” The city reviewed all regulatory and permitting requirements. It is clear that the logging activity is legal. In short, there is nothing the city can “do” to compel the logging to stop.

Through news accounts and subsequent conversations with Aja/Zorzi family members, however, it is obvious that the family holds the city responsible for various actions or inactions which, they say, led to the decision to harvest timber.

There are at least three specific issues which have been cited by the family. These are a property appraisal, payment for land acquired for the Pioneer Street Bridge project and ultimately, the purchase of the property. The family has suggested that the city has failed or refused to act in these cases. Such public statements spurred more calls from citizens asking the city to “work this out”, “appease” the family or otherwise accommodate the family’s concerns.

The truth is that the city has been actively engaged in trying to work out these problems long before the logging activity began. Resolution to these issues, however, is not simple or straight forward and requires an equal level of effort from all parties.

This past winter the city received a formal proposal from the owners’ attorney to purchase Sabin's pasture. The City Council felt that the asking price was unrealistically high. The Council declined the offer and decided, instead, to ask the citizens of the city if they would agree to contribute up to $188,000 toward the purchase of some or all of the property.

Following the voters' approval of this money, the City Manager and I met with Mr. Doug

Zorzi, the son of one of the property owners and a key family spokesperson, about ways to move a purchase forward. At that time, we urged the family to be clear about their goals for the property and strongly suggested that a formal appraisal could provide them with a realistic evaluation of the property’s value.

Mr. Zorzi asked if the voter approved bond funds could used to pay for an appraisal. I told him that restrictions on the ballot article precluded use of these funds for that purpose. There was no further discussion of the matter, no subsequent request from the family for city assistance with appraisal costs and no consideration, and certainly no refusal, of such a request by the City Council.

As recently as the first week of August a group of citizens, including one city council member and a family member met to discuss a purchase. At that time no hint was given by family representatives that logging was being considered, or that payment for an appraisal or taxes was at all an issue. Within the last month the city provided the property owners with an appraisal recently completed by the Friends of Sabin’s Pasture group. During this interaction there was no mention of an additional appraisal or costs.

While these potential purchase discussions and the city’s master plan/zoning work have been going on, the city has also been working to resolve outstanding issues surrounding land acquisition for the Pioneer Street Bridge project. I need to be crystal clear here – the city has never refused to pay the family for this property. As recently as three weeks ago, the city – through its attorney – asked the property owners – through their attorney – to meet to resolve outstanding issues. The family’s attorney declined to meet and reiterated, simply, that the family expected payment of $90,016.

Many people have asked why the family hasn’t been paid. In fact, the family was paid $31,600 in January of 2001 for the section of land where ownership is not in dispute. The remaining two parcels in question are rail and highway rights of way which, possibly, are already owned by the State and/or the City. Why would the state or any government use public money to buy land it already owns?

There has been on ongoing ownership dispute between the state and the Aja/Zorzi family dating as far back as 1980 or so. When entering into initial discussions around the bridge project, the city’s position was firm and clear – it is not the city’s place to determine who owns the land, the State and family need to sort that out.

For reasons unknown to the city, the State declined to participate in a Superior Court ordered mediation process. In the end, Court appointed land commissioners approved a payment to the family under the assumption that the family owned the parcels in question. Having no other information, the city agreed to that stipulation, however the state did not. The city and the property owners cannot agree to sign away property rights potentially owned by the state.

The city has asked the family to present the basis of their ownership claim and resolve their dispute with the state. The state has said they need documentation to support payment. If the family’s ownership claim is valid then they should be paid in full. If the family does not own the land then they are not entitled to any payment. This is a problem which is fact based and should be easily solved through legal work.

We certainly understand that the family has been waiting for $90,016 for some time. They have a report from a court saying it is due to them. The city is not in the position to front the money with no assurance that the state will reimburse the 90% share. Nor are we in a position to pay that kind of money to someone who doesn’t own the land we’re buying. This payment, like all payments on this project, will be made directly by the State of Vermont since they are paying 90% of the project. And the State won’t pay until the ownership issue is resolved.

Who does own the land on which the easement is located? We honestly don’t know. We do not, however, accept the notion that the city has refused to pay and has ignored a court order. We sincerely wish that the family representatives would meet with the state and us..

I know there is a lot of information here. There is, however, danger in simplifying issues out of context. In summary – the city had no prior knowledge of the timber harvesting effort and has no authority to prevent it, the city will continue working with private groups and the family to negotiate a purchase agreement, the permanent zoning for this is being drafted, the city has not refused to pay for an appraisal and, in fact, is considering commissioning one itself. Finally, the city has not refused to pay for land acquisition and, instead, has been working to resolve a dispute so that the family can get paid if they, indeed, are entitled to payment.

The city appreciates all that the family has endured with regard to the lengthy interim zoning, master planning and re-zoning process. The end of this is in sight – a new master plan was adopted in June, the interim zoning expires in the spring and the Planning Commission is working to meet a City Council deadline of final zoning being enacted by December. Although the interim zoning does not prevent a development application, we understand that the intense level of public discussion and scrutiny has been unnerving for the property owners

We regret that tensions are high once again and implore people to be reasonable. We are not convinced that cutting timber on the land is the best move but respect the rights of property owners to make those decisions for themselves. Finally, we ask everyone to get back to the table to work out solutions.

Posted August 25, 2005