BUCKFIELD — The most recent meeting of the Buckfield Board of Selectmen was dominated by intense, and sometimes heated, debate over the issue of automobile graveyards.
Selectmen had set that meeting as the final deadline for the removal of violations from three properties previously cited as being in violation of state law.
Although none of the property owners — Roger "Pud" Bennett, James Bishop, or Allen Young — were present at the meeting, that did not stop their supporters from arguing the issue on their behalf.
Opposing these proponents of personal freedom and property rights, an equal number of citizens were just as vocal in expressing their support of personal responsibility and the efforts of municipal officials to clean up the offending properties.
However, since the February 3 deadline had passed, and selectmen felt that enough tries had been made to bring the properties into compliance with the regulations, selectmen scheduled the next step in the ongoing process.
"We are going to a special town meeting to seek legal fees to pursue this, to seek legal action on these illegal graveyards. That is my intention," said Chairman Lawrence "Skip" Stanley.
Because a high turnout is expected at that special town meeting, it has been scheduled to take place at 7 p.m. on Thursday, March 4, in the cafeteria of the Buckfield Junior/Senior High School.
Town Manager Cynthia M. Dunn expects that a warrant at the March 4 meeting will ask townspeople to approve drawing $10,000 from the town's general fund in order to pursue legal action against the three property owners cited. She reported that the town's attorney, Geoffrey Hole, had estimated a cost of more than $2,000 per case, should any of them go to court. Dunn asserted that as the money is to be taken from Buckfield's general fund there would be no appreciable impact on taxpayers or their mill rates, although the money would not be available for other purposes.
Still, it has been made clear that the town will need the warrant passed if there is to be any hope of effectively pursuing enforcement action against the alleged automobile graveyards. As such, those in favor of the town's efforts to enforce state law on the matter were urged to attend the special town meeting. By the same token, those who believe that property owners should be left alone to manage their land as they see fit are expected to turn out in force in an attempt to block Buckfield's ability to take any meaningful legal action.
Both camps were evident at the selectmen's meeting where legal action was declared the only viable option.
That meeting started out innocuously enough, as Dunn re-opened discussion of the issue by reviewing actions that had taken place to date at the various properties.
However, tempers soon grew heated, prompting Selectman Oscar Gammon to suspend the proceedings at one point to address the use of offensive language.
Dunn stated that Bennett claimed to have registered a sufficient number of vehicles on his property, located at 17 Depot St., so that he may no longer be declared an automobile graveyard under the state's definition.
That definition reads, in part, "an outdoor area used to store three or more unregistered or uninspected motor vehicles."
"I do not have proof of these registrations, whereas Mr. Bennett has to file an SR-22," Dunn said, referring to a form requiring those with certain driving infractions to insure their license.
"He can only pay excise here in town and then he has to proceed to a branch office such as Mexico or Lewiston to finish the transaction," she continued.
"So, bottom line, he done not come into compliance," concluded Stanley.
Town resident Judy Berg attempted to defuse the situation by stating that he had previously offered to allow Bennett to store two of his vehicles in a field on her property.
"That would be great. That would bring him into compliance," said Stanley, with a grin. "Now if you could help Mr. Bishop out, you could put in for a graveyard permit [and] we'd be all set."
Regarding the Bishop property at 10 Depot St., Dunn said that Bishop had been into the town office earlier that same day to register most of his vehicles.
Stanley inquired if these vehicles had yes been inspected. "Therefore, he is not in compliance," Stanley concluded, when Dunn said that they had bot been inspected. When deciding whether vehicles by state law need to be registered "and" inspected, or else registered "or" inspected, Dunn admitted that this may impact the town's ability to have the properties cleaned up.
"That little word raises a lot of questions," she commented.
However, both the town's attorney and the Maine Municipal Association are purported by Dunn to support an interpretation that the law's intent is for a sufficient number o vehicles stored on a property to be both registered and inspected.
Of primary concern to many people present at the meeting was not so much the state of their neighbor's properties, but the perception that municipal officers had singled out certain persons for enforcement.
"It does trouble me that there is selective enforcement in this town," interjected Berg. "There are lots of people who have more than two unregistered vehicles. You have to ask [yourselves] why you sent them [enforcement letters] to certain people."
"I think, Judy, that you, of all people, are well aware that we have been trying to deal with this for a long time," replied Stanley. "We've got to start somewhere, right?"
Dunn stated that information on the new state definition of automobile graveyards, signed into law in May 2003, was included in a newsletter sent with all tax bills in October. This was done in hopes that property owners would bring themselves into voluntary compliance with the revised law.
Subsequently, selectmen have chosen to begin enforcing the law beginning with those properties on which they had received the most citizen complaints.
This was not enough to placate some citizens at the meeting who still expressed a belief that only certain property owners were singled out for enforcement.
"If you are going to enforce this, you should've sent out letter to everyone at once," said an audience member, referring to letters that were sent to Bennett, Bishop and Young in November.
At this Stanley apologized, saying that the town only had the resources to pursue a limited number of cases at a time. Certain audience members visibly took little solace in this, even after Stanley's assertions that "all violators" in Buckfield would be brought into compliance eventually.
Michael Miclon, owner of the Oddfellow Theater located in the heart of Buckfield Village, rose, among others, in support of Buckfield's municipal officers.
"I don't want to take away anyone's personal privacy," he said, "because I want it for myself. But when an article in the Advertiser refers to Buckfield as 'Junkfield,' that hurts me.
"And it's not just as a business owner, because it's not all about dollars and cents for me. Buckfield is a good town, a good community. That's why I continue to live here. That's why I have my business here. That's why I am raising my family here. But these properties, and I am speaking primarily about the ones on Depot Street, they are not safe."
Miclon then raised questions regarding personal safety and environmental concerns relating to the Bishop and Bennett properties, including a tangent on the plumbing and possible code violations on the Bennett property in particular. He also recounted comments from his patrons, whom he quoted as lamenting the degradation in recent years of the Buckfield community.
This prompted a response from Charlie Berg, who normally operated the audi-visual equipment that records selectmen's meetings. He came out from behind his camera in a spirited defense of Bennett, recounting Bennett's military experiences transporting cordite in Cambodia.
"I doubt any of you know the smell of cordite," he chastised. "I know a lot of people that came back from there [as] wrecked me, and it's no different for him," said Berg.
Berg then offered his opinion that Bennett had come a long way toward recovery in recent years, before addressing Miclon and others in the audience directly.
"But how many of you have been over to shake his hand, to introduce yourselves? Who has offered to help him out in any way? Where is your sense of community then?"
However, despite the sparring over Bennett's property and personal habits, most of the fireworks were set off by supporters of Allen Young.
In attendance were Young's son, Allen, and his son-in-law, Joe Brickel. Both men attempted variously throughout the evening to argue Young's personal property rights and to build a case for his qualifying exemptions as a hobbyist.
Brickel estimated that Young had some 20 vehicles on his lot, but expressed indignation that the town should be bothering Young when "they're not even visible from the road."
He also grew particularly incensed when Dunn admitted that, in her role as Bickfield's code enforcement officer, she had taken a "walk through the woods" in order to inspect the posted property.
"So, you were trespassing!"" he exclaimed several times, rising from his chair.
Dunn read from Maine statutes quoting passages that supported her ability to enforce the law, prompting Brickel toward further outbursts when she refused to name the anonymous sources who had complained to her about the property.
Meanwhile, Stanley quoted other passages in the statutes regarding exemptions to automobile graveyard permits.
Brickel said that Young had "plans" for all of the vehicles on the property, but had not been able to act upon those plans due to health reasons.
Young's son reported that these health issues had driven his father out of business. He claimed that Young, upon closing his garage, had been assured by Gordon Carroll, a state inspector, that he could be able to park his remaining inventory on his property until such time as he could dispose of them all.
Because Young planned to work on the vehicles when his health improved, Brickel claimed that made him eligible for a hobbyist exemption. Brickel was forced to admit however that no work had been done on the vehicles since they had been brought to the property several years previously.
Gammon then concluded that Young could not claim exemptions for actions he is not actively engaged in.
"If he doesn't show any plans of immediately being a hobbyist, in the meantime he's in violation," he stated, with frankness.
Brickel continued to engage both selectmen and Dunn in verbal sparring matches throughout the evening, forcefully rebutting every legal point made with assertions of privacy violations.
He occasionally turned to others in the audience in an effort to make his case, attempting to persuade them that Buckfield's municipal officers would not be content until they had control over the smallest details of everyone's property.
That tactic seemed to backfire on him at one point when Richard Piper rose to address environmental concerns. Piper said that he was a local farmer and that "my property sits on an aquifer, and I'm downhill from you."
Brickel berated Piper, disavowing the possibility that vehicles on Young's property posed any significant threat. He then attempted to turn the tables by addressing the effect of Piper's farm on the environment. The exchange escalated until Gammon stepped in to referee.
Throughout the debate, Stanley continually tried to bring the conversation back to resolutions, rather tan linger in confrontation.
He alluded to the fact that Young's property, unlike those of Bennett and Bishop, which lack sufficient setbacks, could qualify for a graveyard permit.
"I'm trying to work with you here," said Stanley. "Are there no family members that can help him pop gas tanks and bring him into compliance as a salvage yard that we can permit the guy with until his health is better and he can go back to being a hobbyist?"
When none in Young's family displayed any willingness toward making such a commitment, Dunn interjected.
"If it's about the money, I will give him $50 for the permit myself," she offered.
This offer was declined, as was Stanley's offer of more time. Young's family then left, stating that they preferred to await the outcome of the special town meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment