Meeting report · Board of Selectmen
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Board of Selectmen — May 5, 2026
The meeting was marked by heavy public testimony regarding trespassing, deception, and property rights, exacerbated by significant off-agenda discussions regarding committee oversight.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Baboosic Greenway Rail Trail Project
Potential legal disputes over property easements and significant allocation of municipal/state grant resources. Affected: Local property owners (abutters) and taxpayers.
other high impact
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Adjournment of the meeting
Motion to adjourn made by a speaker, seconded by John (a speaker/UNKNOWN), all in favor.
Passed (unanimous)
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:02 Babusik Greenway Rail Trail Project Input
The Board of Selectmen held a public meeting to gather input and concerns regarding the proposed rail trail project, specifically addressing connectivity, private property rights, and land use.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 02:06 Private Property Rights and Easement Disputes
Property owners (the Mayors and others) expressed strong opposition to the project, citing limited existing town easements that only permit a narrow footpath and arguing the town lacks the rights to develop a full bike path on their land.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 23:01 Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Oversight
Citizens raised concerns regarding the BPAC's transparency, alleging they have acted outside their advisory mandate, engaged in deceptive communication, and attempted to influence other boards like the Planning Board.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Babusik Greenway Rail Trail Project
Conflict between municipal infrastructure goals and private property rights. Landowners argue the town is attempting to overstep existing narrow easements to build a full bike path, potentially involving unlawful trespassing.
Board position: Undecided; the board deferred a 'build' vs 'no-build' decision to a future meeting while acknowledging the need to review land use and easement rights.
high concern
02
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Oversight
Citizens alleged the BPAC is acting outside its advisory mandate, engaging in deceptive communication, and attempting to influence other boards. This was an off-agenda topic, meaning residents had no prior notice to prepare for this specific accountability discussion.
Board position: The Board signaled a need to reassess the committee, with the Chair stating the BPAC has no input into rewriting its own charter.
high concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Discuss and decide on the 'build' vs 'no-build' option for the rail trail project.
Assigned: Board of Selectmen · Due: 2026-05-11
Provide the state grant application and associated documentation to Kat (Tumas) for review.
Assigned: Board of Selectmen / Staff · Due: Soon
Investigate reports of surveyors entering private property without permission and determine their authority and scope of work.
Assigned: Board of Selectmen / Staff · Due: After Monday's meeting
Hold a discussion regarding the future role and charter of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).
Assigned: Board of Selectmen · Due: Not specified
Notable statements
It is my professional opinion that the scope of the proposed Babusa Greenway Rail Trail is a gross overburden of the actual rights that the town enjoys over the mayor's private property. — SPEAKER_10 (Ken Clinton) · Providing professional land use and surveying opinion regarding the limited easement on the Mayor property. ▶ 07:18
The burden of proof is not on us. The burden of proof is on the people who are wanting to build the trail. — SPEAKER_04 (Derek Lucci) · Arguing that the project's lack of connectivity and impact on residents should necessitate a 'no-build' vote. ▶ 12:41
I think there's a lot of confusion for me about who has contacted you for easements or talked to you... I still don't have a clear understanding of who those people were. — SPEAKER_08 (Madam Chair) · Acknowledging the lack of clarity regarding town communication with abutters. ▶ 29:19
I think they [BPAC] have no input into that [rewriting the charter]. They have no input into that. That's not what they were established for. — SPEAKER_08 (Madam Chair) · Responding to concerns about the BPAC attempting to expand its authority and influence. ▶ 54:13
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
9
Total speakers
3
Addressed
3
Partial
3
Not addressed
Ken Clinton (Agent for Kat and Hugo Mayor)
Partial
Speaking on behalf of the Mayors, Clinton argues that the town's rights to the rail bed are limited to a narrow footpath and a non-existent footbridge. He asserts that the proposed rail trail project is an unlawful overreach of these rights and causes trespassing on private property.
Key concern
The town lacks the legal rights to develop a bike trail on the specific segment of private property owned by the Mayors.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the presentation and later mentioned they are reviewing concerns regarding town-owned land.
While the board listened, they did not provide a definitive legal ruling during the meeting, stating they would discuss the project on Monday.
Derek Lucci
Partial
Lucci argues that the project lacks connectivity and is a 'passion project' rather than a community need. He expresses frustration over a lack of transparency and requests that the board vote 'no-build' to prevent wasting resources.
Key concern
The project lacks connectivity, lacks a clear community need, and has been characterized by a lack of transparency.
Board responseThe board chair explained that the process is slow and that they are taking input to reach a conclusion by Monday.
The board acknowledged the frustration and the process but did not commit to a specific vote or provide the requested documents immediately.
Joanne Dumas
Addressed
Dumas notes the confusion caused by inconsistent segment labeling in town documents. She also mentions concerns about a landowner in segment three and requests information regarding the authorship of the state grant to ensure transparency.
Key concern
Inconsistent documentation/labeling and lack of transparency regarding the state grant application.
Board responseThe board chair noted that the grant application should be in the minutes and a board member mentioned that staff would work on providing the requested discovery.
The board provided a path forward for accessing the grant information through staff and official records.
null
Addressed
The speaker explains that they were contacted by previous committee members for an alternate route and participated in meetings to view property markers.
Key concern
Sharing personal experience of being contacted by town officials regarding property use.
Board responseThe board chair acknowledged the comment and asked for clarification on timing.
The board acknowledged the speaker's history of communication with the town.
Terry Robinson
Partial
Robinson expresses shock at being unaware of surveying on their land and accuses the Bike Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) of acting without transparency. He also alleges that committee members have used private identities to influence public opinion.
Key concern
Lack of transparency and alleged deceptive tactics by the BPAC regarding eminent domain and public influence.
Board responseThe board chair accepted physical copies of the emails/letters provided and stated the board would discuss the role of the BPAC.
The board accepted the evidence and promised a future discussion regarding the committee's role, but did not resolve the allegations immediately.
null
Not addressed
The speaker declares they will fight any easement or acquisition of their property and is working with an attorney to add restrictive covenants to their deed. They argue the project is a waste of taxpayer money for a 'trail to nowhere.'
Key concern
Protecting private property from future easements or acquisitions.
Board responseThe board chair thanked the speaker and asked if they wanted to leave a copy of their materials.
The board acknowledged the speaker but did not address the legal threat or the specific request to protect property.
David Brown
Addressed
Brown reports that surveyors appeared on his property in 2024 without his permission and continued even after being asked to leave.
Key concern
Unauthorized surveying of private property.
Board responseThe board chair asked for the specific date and requested text messages as evidence.
The board actively engaged with the claim and requested documentation to investigate.
Todd Newman
Partial
Newman claims he was deceived by the BPAC and the town regarding the use of eminent domain. He argues that the project is being pushed through despite financial infeasibility and lack of community support.
Key concern
Deception regarding eminent domain and the mismanagement/misrepresentation of the project's scope and funding.
Board responseThe board chair acknowledged the concerns and mentioned that they have met with the ACC regarding town-owned land.
The board acknowledged the sentiment but did not directly address the accusations of 'deception' with a specific resolution.
Steve Martin
Not addressed
Martin raises concerns about the safety of e-bikes on rail trails and encourages board members to visit the specific locations (Dream Lake and Babusik Lake) to see the encroachment on private land.
Key concern
Safety of e-bikes and the physical encroachment on private properties.
Board responseThe board chair thanked the speaker.
The board acknowledged the comment but did not address the e-bike safety concern or the request for site visits.
Accountability flags
Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.
Agenda items not discussed
Topics discussed — not on agenda
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Amherst.
Follow Amherst
One email when a new report is published from the Board of Selectmen — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-29.