25.07.2013 Views

Putting Public Roads to Bed in Maine

Putting Public Roads to Bed in Maine

Putting Public Roads to Bed in Maine

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Putt<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Roads</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>Bed</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong> Ma<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Abandonment vs.<br />

Discont<strong>in</strong>uance Can the laws be<br />

improved?


Aroos<strong>to</strong>ok County Hypo<br />

Monument Road, Town of Amity<br />

0.9 miles from this sign <strong>to</strong> the woodlot<br />

Statu<strong>to</strong>rily abandoned


Monument Road Example<br />

Suppose the follow<strong>in</strong>g:<br />

Pay $75K for 100 ac with public road<br />

frontage<br />

Other, cheaper lots available but poor<br />

access<br />

Intend <strong>to</strong> harvest wood and keep <strong>in</strong> Tree<br />

Growth<br />

Five years later Amity abandons


Monument Road Hypo Cont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />

• Town reta<strong>in</strong>s free public easement<br />

• Ready <strong>to</strong> harvest but road needs $20K<br />

• Unable <strong>to</strong> justify<br />

• Put on market for $55K<br />

• Sell <strong>to</strong> snowmobiler for $45K<br />

• Town saves money but owners out at<br />

least $30K<br />

• Unfair or just <strong>to</strong>o bad for them?


Three Types of <strong>Roads</strong><br />

• 1. Town Way (<strong>to</strong>wn road)<br />

• 2. <strong>Public</strong> Easement<br />

• 3. Private Road


Why abandon?<br />

• Save money – roads are EXPENSIVE


Three ways <strong>to</strong> dispose of roads<br />

• 1. Section 3026 Discont<strong>in</strong>uance<br />

• 2. Common Law Abandonment<br />

• 3. Section 3028 Abandonment


Statu<strong>to</strong>ry Discont<strong>in</strong>uance<br />

• 1. Road is <strong>to</strong>wn way or public easement<br />

• 2. Notice given<br />

• 3. Order filed that specifies<br />

a. Location<br />

b. Names of abutters, and<br />

c. Amount of damages<br />

Important: <strong>Public</strong> easement reta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

Key: Damages may be found and paid!


Common Law Abandonment<br />

• Non-use of public road for 20 years<br />

• No public easement reta<strong>in</strong>ed here!<br />

• Entire fee <strong>in</strong>terest reverts <strong>to</strong> abutters


Statu<strong>to</strong>ry Abandonment<br />

• 30 years of non-ma<strong>in</strong>tenance (not use)<br />

• Refers back <strong>to</strong> Discont<strong>in</strong>uance Statute<br />

concern<strong>in</strong>g public easement retention<br />

• Get ready…<br />

• Subject <strong>to</strong> vote <strong>to</strong> make the way an<br />

easement for recreational use<br />

• MMA <strong>Roads</strong> Manual: never been tested;<br />

be careful; have an at<strong>to</strong>rney


Statu<strong>to</strong>ry Abandonment<br />

Cont’d<br />

• Isolated acts of ma<strong>in</strong>tenance not enough<br />

• Key: no provision for damages <strong>to</strong><br />

abutters


Problems?<br />

• -Three different laws <strong>to</strong> do the same<br />

th<strong>in</strong>g<br />

• - Constitutional issues<br />

• - Tak<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

• - Lucas v. South Carol<strong>in</strong>a Coastal<br />

Council<br />

• - Investment-backed expectations (Penn<br />

Central Transportation Co. v. City of<br />

NY)


These do not matter because:<br />

• Ma<strong>in</strong>e Supreme Judicial Court says so<br />

• Because lack of ma<strong>in</strong>tenance is not a<br />

governmental action, there can be no<br />

tak<strong>in</strong>g (govt is do<strong>in</strong>g noth<strong>in</strong>g rather<br />

than do<strong>in</strong>g some action)<br />

• Do you agree?


Can’t the law still be made more<br />

fair?<br />

• Additional problems:<br />

• Confus<strong>in</strong>g recreational easement<br />

language<br />

• Liability issues<br />

– Ma<strong>in</strong>e Landowner Liability Law<br />

– Road damages<br />

– Environmental violations


Aroos<strong>to</strong>ok County Hypo Aga<strong>in</strong><br />

• Under Common Law Abandonment:<br />

• -Fee simple back <strong>to</strong> abutters<br />

• -No easement retention<br />

• -No damages paid<br />

• -<strong>Public</strong> road has become private<br />

property


Hypo under Discont<strong>in</strong>uance<br />

• Town officials decide <strong>to</strong> discont<strong>in</strong>ue<br />

• Provide notice; file order with clerk<br />

• Officials determ<strong>in</strong>e any damages and<br />

amounts<br />

• If after September 3, 1965 then public<br />

easement reta<strong>in</strong>ed (but damages might<br />

be paid)


Hypo under Abandonment<br />

Statute<br />

• Road presumed abandoned if 30 years of<br />

non-ma<strong>in</strong>tenance by Town<br />

• If no party successfully rebuts the<br />

presumption of abandonment then the<br />

order stands (unless court rules no)<br />

• <strong>Public</strong> easement au<strong>to</strong>matically reta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

• Rema<strong>in</strong>der of property reverts <strong>to</strong><br />

abutters<br />

• Does <strong>to</strong>wn mess with recreational<br />

easement?


Hypo under Statu<strong>to</strong>ry<br />

Abandonment<br />

• Problem: Landowners now have <strong>to</strong> pay<br />

<strong>to</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> what was a <strong>to</strong>wnma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

road at time of purchase<br />

• And <strong>to</strong>wn reta<strong>in</strong>s an easement<br />

• And no damages were paid <strong>to</strong> the<br />

landowners<br />

• Fair or <strong>to</strong>o bad?


Proposed Changes <strong>to</strong> Law<br />

• Possible Solution #1:<br />

• Repeal 3028 and allow 3026 and<br />

common law abandonment <strong>to</strong> operate<br />

• Possible Solution #2:<br />

• Repeal 3026 and 3028 and abrogate<br />

common law abandonment and replace<br />

with a new statute


Quick look at new statute<br />

• Towns have two years <strong>to</strong> designate all<br />

roads<br />

• Landowners have two years <strong>to</strong> rebut the<br />

designations<br />

• Hear<strong>in</strong>gs held <strong>to</strong> settle arguments<br />

• At end of four years, all determ<strong>in</strong>ations<br />

f<strong>in</strong>al<br />

• Use discont<strong>in</strong>uance statute go<strong>in</strong>g<br />

forward


F<strong>in</strong>al look at the hypo:<br />

Under Solution #1<br />

• Discont<strong>in</strong>uance and Common Law<br />

Abandonment still operate<br />

• No Common Law Abandonment here<br />

because no lack <strong>to</strong> use<br />

• No discont<strong>in</strong>uance because Amity never<br />

discont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />

• Road still public<br />

• Amity could choose <strong>to</strong> discont<strong>in</strong>ue<br />

(damages may be paid <strong>to</strong> abutters)


Under a New Statute<br />

• Amity designates the stretch as a public<br />

easement (abandoned)<br />

• Proper notice given<br />

• <strong>Public</strong> hear<strong>in</strong>gs held if needed<br />

• Determ<strong>in</strong>ation then becomes frozen<br />

• Should Amity choose <strong>to</strong> add recreational<br />

easement <strong>in</strong> future, must pay fair<br />

market value


Conclusion<br />

• Is the problem large enough <strong>to</strong> act?<br />

• If so, go with simplicity and Solution #1<br />

• Allow Common Law Abandonment and<br />

Statu<strong>to</strong>ry Discont<strong>in</strong>uance <strong>to</strong> operate and<br />

get rid of Statu<strong>to</strong>ry Abandonment


Thank you for listen<strong>in</strong>g!

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!