More than 25 Jefferson residents turned out Sept. 24, for a public hearing on a referendum question asking the town to approve a condemnation order that selectmen say will make it easier for the town to maintain Goose Hill Road.
The question to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot reads as follows:
“Shall the Town (1) approve a Condemnation Order adopted by the Municipal Officers on September 20, 2012, that cures defects in the Town’s title to an easement for highway purposes in the road known as the Goose Hill Road, being a strip of land three rods in width, the centerline of which is the center of the current travelled way along the Goose Hill Road running from Rt. 126 in Jefferson to the Waldoboro town line, and (2) appropriate no damages as compensation for the aforementioned easement.”
A rod is 16.5 feet, making a three-rod easement 49.5 feet wide. The travelled roadway would lie within that width, with the remaining easement used for ditching and other maintenance.
Selectmen Robert “Jigger” Clark and James Hilton were present on behalf of the board, as were Town Attorney Lee Bragg and Road Commissioner Alan Johnston.
Goose Hill Road resident Suzanne Hamilton was the first to speak.
“I certainly believe in the vote,” she said. “If you’re going to vote, I want you to be sure of what it is you’re voting for.” She said she spent the previous two weeks researching state law.
Hamilton said selectmen have previously stated that the town already has the right-of-way, and asked why they need an easement under those circumstances.
“The title is defective,” Bragg said
Hamilton said town statute gives residents ownership of property up to the center line of the abutting roadway. Bragg said there are exceptions when deeds describe different boundaries.
“If you grant over this easement to the town you are going to be losing approximately 25 feet from the center line of your property,” Hamilton told fellow citizens. She said the action would take property owners’ rights to protect trees, rocks and other existing natural and man-made features.
She reminded residents that the Goose Hill Bridge, built by the state DOT, is only one lane wide and said that decision was based on the expectation of traffic flow over the next 25-30 years.
“We don’t have a big need for a wider road,” she said. Hamilton said Goose Hill Road residents have been paying taxes to cover the costs of plowing and maintenance.
Hamilton said the state did a “legal survey” before taking land for the bridge.
“The town is offering nothing,” she said. “I know you guys (the selectmen) are all doing the best you can, but it’s not the right way to go.”
Bragg said most of the old roads in town are three-rod roads with newer roads sometimes being four rods, or 66 feet, wide. He said approximately 80 percent of town roads in Maine are three-rod roads.
“There’s no owning to the center line of the interstate,” he said. Bragg said that was also the case with some town-owned roads, which the municipalities own outright.
“That is one way to own a road,” Bragg said. “The other way to own a road is through easement.” He said circumstantial evidence, such as aerial photographs and existing stone walls, shows that the town has owned an easement on Goose Hill Road for 150 years.
“The belief by the board is that this is an old county road that was laid out as three rods,” Bragg said. He said the purpose of the vote was to confirm that circumstance.
Victoria Burbank disagreed with Bragg’s contention that Goose Hill Road was originally a county road.
“In my deed, I had to give an easement to CMP to put a pole there,” she said. Burbank said the road was built as a driveway and that her land occupies both sides of the road.
Burbank said actions by the town such as ditching and building up the road surface with pavement have caused water, that used to run down the roadway, to flow onto her land, making some of it unusable as pasture.
She said only a portion of the road, at the top of the hill, was paved when she bought her property. She said an abutting property owner has filled in a culvert that also provided drainage for her field.
“The town made a mistake by allowing houses to be built without calling for new homes to drain properly,” she said.
Bragg said deeds do not always mention easements that run over the land they describe.
“You own the property under the road,” he said. “The fact that your deed didn’t mention an easement over the top of your property doesn’t mean it’s not there.”
He said resolving the issue by a town-wide vote would alleviate problems that Central Maine Power has when trying to place utility poles, since they would be able to get permission for the whole road from the town, rather than being required to approach each individual landowner.
He said another motivation is that Goose Hill Road belongs on the town’s rolling maintenance program.
Hamilton said the current status ensures that CMP and others doing maintenance must communicate with homeowners before taking action. She also expressed concern that a different board or road commissioner might make decisions that do not take residents’ concerns into account. She asked citizens to look at their property from the center of the road to imagine what changes might be made within the easement.
Lloyd Hodgkins said he owns 600-feet along Goose Hill Road.
“It’s clear to me that the town needs this easement,” he said. “It is just almost stupid that we’re here in the first place discussing it.”
He told Burbank she was “like a virus that won’t go away.”
Johnston said the pavement was 20-feet wide on most parts of the road and that he needs an additional 4.5 feet in order to properly maintain it. He said the issue has come up at this time because he needs to divert water off the road.
Al Vorhis asked if the town has conducted a survey or done an engineering study to find ways to alleviate the drainage problem.
“Unfortunately, Mrs. Burbank’s field is lower than the road,” Johnston said. “I can’t make water run uphill.” Burbank said the roadway was level with the field until it was paved.
Yvonne Morrison said she had a problem with the part of the ballot question that said the town would not compensate landowners for the loss of the use of their property.
Bragg said selectmen had two choices as to what to ask from voters; to either pay for a survey to clearly show a three-rod easement, or to grant the easement as measured from the center line of the current travelled roadway.
“The board decided not to spend the money on the survey,” Bragg said. He said the statement about compensation is required to be included in the ballot question by state law.
“This road has been there as close to forever as you can imagine,” he said. “The town has maintained it. The town has acquired the right to the road through proscriptive use.”
“The road has gotten wider and wider,” Elaine Sutherburg said. “The more you give, the more people want. We just don’t want to lose any more of our property than we have to.”
Jefferson citizens will vote on the condemnation order when they go to the polls in the general election on Tues., Nov. 6. Polls will be open at the Jefferson Fire Station from 8 a.m. – 8 p.m. For more information call the Jefferson Town Office at 549-7401.
