Landowner says Warren County should join in fight

By Robert King -- Daily Staff Writer

FRONT ROYAL — A defendant in a lawsuit over the relocation of Mary's Shady Lane wants Warren County to join the fight against the access point's relocation.

Some members of the Board of Supervisors say the lawsuit is a dispute between landowners, but Sally Long, a defendant in the suit, said the county should get involved because the proposed move would burden residents.

Mary's Shady Lane is an unpaved easement that acts as an entrance and exit point from Happy Creek Road, and is partially located in the town of Front Royal.

F&R Limited, which claims it owns land the easement crosses, wants the court to extinguish the rights of more than 100 property owners to the easement. The company wants to move the easement so it has direct access to Shenandoah Shores Road.

The move would aid the company in its efforts to develop property it owns, Michael Coughlin, a Prince William-based attorney representing F&R, has said.

Many residents have filed responses saying the relocation would hurt them financially.

The national homebuilder Centex Homes was part of the lawsuit when it was originally filed in 2006. At the time, Centex was behind a proposed 1,862-home development off Happy Creek Road.

The relocation was central to the developer's plans.

Centex abandoned the project in December 2006 because of the poor housing market, but remained in the lawsuit.

In April, Centex asked the court to remove it as a plaintiff. F&R still wanted to move forward, and filed a new complaint the same month.

The town of Front Royal was originally a defendant. It agreed to be dismissed as long as it could still use a utility easement that crossed Mary's Shady Lane.

Long, who lives in Florida and has a summer house near the lane, was also upset with the town's decision. "The town is clearly not representing taxpayers' interests if all they care about is the sewer line which does not serve our community," she wrote in an e-mail.

Long said with the town out, the county should be involved because the relocation will burden the residents.

"We have all been members of this community for a long time, and we have used that road for so long and paid for the upkeep for so long," Long said.

She has asked residents and defendants to contact Shenandoah District Supervisor Richard H. Traczyk, whose district encompasses much of the easement.

Traczyk said he has spoken with attorneys and county officials about joining the lawsuit. He said the county shouldn't get involved now because of the nature of the dispute.

"The county has not taken sides when landowners have disputes like this because at this point the county is not involved," he wrote in an e-mail to Long.

Happy Creek District Supervisor Tony F. Carter, board Vice Chairman Glenn L. White and Chairman Archie Fox agreed.

South River Supervisor Linda Glavis was unavailable for comment.

Long contends the county does have a role in the lawsuit. She and many defendants have argued the easement is a pre-Byrd Act road.

The Byrd Act created the secondary road system in Virginia in 1932. Localities were given the option of placing secondary roads under the management of the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The defendants argued that the court doesn't have the power to vacate and relocate the easement, and that supervisors should make the decision after a public hearing.

Traczyk said the supervisors must wait until a judge makes a decision on that and other arguments.

"The best thing I can do for my constituents is to wait for the judge to make a decision, and then take a position if we have to take one after that," he said.

* Contact Robert King at rking@nvdaily.com