Board of Selectmen Meeting, June 11, 2025

How wide should the easements be on the town’s old roads?

The Board held a public hearing about changing the layout of Channel Street. The board expected the meeting to be short, and allotted 30 minutes for it, immediately before a Planning Board meeting was to use the conference room. The meeting lasted over an hour, and the board considered tabling the issue to be addressed at its next meeting. More people attended the meeting than there were chairs set out.

Before discussing what happened, first, there’s some news from recently released minutes from the board’s non-public sessions.

Decisions Made in Non-Public Sessions

• The prospective date for a potential court hearing for the defamation suit against the town is around November 2026.

• Highway Director Steve Rollins was promoted to Director of Public Works and given a merit pay increase.

• The Director of Parks & Recreation was given a merit pay increase.

• Several other lower-level employees were granted merit increases and cost-of-living adjustments.

Public Hearing Re Channel Street

In 2021, to end the lawsuit against the town that was caused by the Board of Selectmen’s decision to stop maintaining a large number of roads that the town had maintained since the early 1960s or before, a warrant article was presented to the voters and approved, officially designating the roads in question to be town roads, and therefore the town was responsible for maintaining them. A problem has resulted from this, as the roads in question predate the usual modern process for accepting roads, which requires various details about the road to be specified, such as the width of the right-of-way, the width of the traveled surface, and the exact location on a map (via surveying).

The surveyor’s map of Channel Street and the surrounding area.

In the case of Channel Street, the owner of the land the street passes over, and on both sides of the street, now wishes to subdivide to create a small number of lots, mostly for their children. The Planning Board was faced with a request for a subdivision along this road which, in a technical sense, no one knew where it was or how wide it was. Moreover, did this road need to meet the standards for roads for new subdivisions, or should some other rule apply?

For over two years, the landowner worked with the town and the town’s former attorney to create the necessary specificity. The area was surveyed, and a 25 ft easement was proposed with a 22 ft traveled way - for which trees have since been cleared and the road widened. All of this was done by the landowner, and to the town’s recommendations.

The public hearing was a seeming formality. After the meeting, one of the Selectmen told me that they thought the meeting was going to take 15 minutes. Instead, it turned out to be lengthy and contentious.

Two members of the Planning Board urged the Board of Selectmen not to go forward with what had seemed to be agreed upon. They thought a 25 ft easement was too little - that the road simply did not meet the town’s road standards. [Note: in 2021 the voters also rescinded the town’s road standards]. For new roads, the Planning Board requires a 50-foot easement. The Planning Board members thought that the town should, at minimum, require a 33-foot easement in this case, as this was the requirement many decades ago. They considered 25 ft to be insufficient, should work on a culvert ever be needed, because that would require construction work going outside the easement. They also considered it insufficient in width for road maintenance, snow removal, and drainage. Further, if this 25 ft right of way were to be granted, it would create a problematic precedent with other roads in town that are similarly unclearly defined.

The landowner remarked that he thought 25 ft was appropriate for the road’s rural character, and that the road was all upland and had no need of culverts.

There was some confusion and discussion about whether the town did or did not have a right of way, and whether what was being debated was a right-of-way or an issue of what the travelled surface was.

Selectman Decker said he thought a 33-foot right-of-way was needed. Selectman Shirland pointed out that the town had long ago instructed the landowner that it wanted 25 ft. Selectman Welsh said he thought it was a shame the town hadn’t asked for 50 ft.

A resident then spoke on the issue. The resident pointed out that the road was very old, probably going back to the 1800s, and was originally a continuation of Dolloff Dam Road that continued through their yard and then across a ford in the lake onto Horse Island. In the early 1960s, the section of road now known as Channel Street was relocated by Herb Lamprey to its present location to better serve the subdivision of several homes being created on Lamprey Drive and Indian Run. According to state law, the town was supposed to have formally recognized the road as a public road prior to 1968 because the road was so old.

The resident corroborated the landowner’s claim that the road was all uplands and had no need of culverts. The resident said that the road had been widened twice since the 2021 vote, and that the first time the road was widened, they had complained to the board about it. The town was making roads unsafe by making them so wide and straight, as this encourages drivers to greatly exceed the 25 mph speed limit. Because such roads encourage speeding, narrow, winding roads have been proven to be safer. The resident supported the landowner’s proposed 25-foot right-of-way.

The landowner’s survey spoke, pointing out that if the town wanted a wider right-of-way, it would legally constitute a taking, for which the town would need to compensate the landowner.

Selectman Decker moved that the drivable surface of the road should be 25 feet wide. This passed unanimously.

Selectman Decker then moved to require a 33-foot right-of-way.

Chris Evans of the planning board spoke, suggesting that the board ask the landowner if he would be okay with 33 ft. He also commented that he thought that Dololf Dam Road needed to be widened, straightened, and have trees taken out. For safety’s sake, the additional width is needed.

Selectman Shirland mentioned that the board had received no comments for this public hearing from the Fire, Police, or Highway departments that this road needed to be wider, and that the board had received input from residents that they don’t want it wider.

The landowner said they would consider granting the town a 33-foot right-of-way only if they were allowed to increase the number of residences to be built by 33%, and he wanted compensation for the taking.

Selectman Shirland replied that the board did not have the power to grant more residences. Only the Planning Board had that power.

Selectman Fyfe said she felt that the goalposts were being changed. The Town Attorney had long ago told the landowner that the town approved of the 25-foot easement. Selectman Welsh concurred. While he would be more comfortable with the 33-foot easement, the town had told the landowner 25 feet.

The board then voted 3 to 1 to accept the 25 ft easement. Selectman Decker was opposed. Selectman Dabrieo was absent.

The resident who spoke earlier pointed out that the board had earlier voted for a 25 ft drivable surface, but the existing drivable surface was 22 ft. So, the board had instructed the landowner to widen the road, but based on what the Selectmen had said in the meeting, that they were fine with the existing drivable surface, this was a contradiction.

The board voted unanimously to correct their earlier vote.