Complaint finally served in Buckfield ‘junkyard’ case

BUCKFIELD — For proponents of a clean and beautiful village center, this moment has been a long time in coming.  On November 23, James D. Bishop of 10 Depot St. was served with a complaint for maintaining an illegal automobile graveyard.

The papers were actually served by Civil Process Deputy Ben Conant to Bishop’s father, Linwood Bishop.

“A lot of civil stuff can be given to a person of suitable age in the dwelling house, or thereabouts,” said Conant.

Buckfield municipal officers estimate that they have received more than 50 complaints regarding Bishop’s property — located just west of the village center — over the last couple of years.

Many complaints have been verbal, some more formal.  Town Clerk Cynthia M. Dunn pointed in particular to one letter sent anonymously to the town office in November 2002. 

In this letter, the writer described a recent visit from an

out-of-state friend.  The friend had joked, not altogether kindly, that upon arriving in Buckfield, and seeing the dilapidated vehicles dotted about the village, he knew he had arrived, at last, “in the hicks.” 

The writer went on to lament how the town could have let itself fall into such a condition, before finally concluding, “They should change the name of the town to Junkfield!”

As far back as October 2000, a full two years before the “Junkfield” letter, Dunn, then the Town Manager, was attempting to clean up the town’s image. These efforts were ultimately unable to proceed due to what Dunn described as “technicalities.”

One problem is that the voters of Buckfield have never adopted an automobile graveyard ordinance of their own. 

“We rely on state law,” Dunn said of the town’s only legal resource.  Until recently, that resource was plagued by what some perceived as vague wording.

“That left a little bit of guesswork,” Dunn continued, referring to the desire of town fathers to err on the side of personal property rights when enforcing the law. 

However, an amendment to the relevant Maine statutes, signed into law in May 2003, redefined an automobile graveyard as an “outdoor area used to store three or more unregistered or uninspected motor vehicles.”

“This amendment gave the towns more backbone, if you will, to enforce this for those towns that don’t have local ordinances,” said Dunn.

Soon after that modification in verbiage, Dunn notified Bishop, as well as two other local property owners, of the violations. 

After a deadline for action passed, selectmen requested that Dunn draft a letter to Bishop, dated March 4, 2004 advising him of their intent to pursue legal action.

At the annual town meeting in June, voters appropriated $10,000 to cover anticipated legal costs.

Bishop was given at least one extension on a deadline mandated by the town.  The other two property owners in question — Roger “Pud” Bennet of 17 Depot St. and Allen Young of 18 Shed Hollow Rd — have reportedly taken some steps to clean up their properties.  However, Bishop has, to date, shown no inclination to remove or recondition any of the dilapidated vehicles on his lot.  This inaction finally prompted new Town Manager Glen Holmes to press forward with legal action.

In his answer to the complaint, filed with the Clerk of Courts on November 30, Bishop holds the same line he has maintained in several meetings with selectmen.

Bishop is acting pro se, or as his own legal representation, and his remarks are reprinted exactly as they appear in Superior Court documents.  Only those paragraphs Bishop typed in all capitol letters have been changed.

“My cars are registered so I don’t come under this law and have been registered for years, and that is an antique that I want to restore,” Bishop wrote.

“I have all these registrations and so dose the town so how could they say I’m in violation of this law, now I cannot be a nuisance unless I have three or more cars unregistered and I do not fit in this category.”

Bishop states unequivocally that he is not the one who has drawn out the issue.  Instead, he claims that it is really the town that has refused to work with him to reach an equitable solution.

“I’ve tried numerous times to work with the town on this matter have gone to town meetings & selectman’s meetings to resolve this and my answer to this each time, ‘is only I’m in violation’ even when I ask witch cars they have problems with, with no answer how can you fix what is wrong if you don’t get a straight answer to my questions.”

Bishop then rails against Dunn for seemingly conspiring against him.  His “proof” lies in the fact that the complaint, filed by the town’s attorney Geoffrey Hole, mentions scrap metal in addition to his vehicles.  There has also been an ongoing issue, Bishop claims, with getting notices and correspondences to him in a timely fashion.

“I’ve asked Cindy Dunn if the town had any problems other than my cars and her answer to that question was no just the cars.  And this is on tape, but to most of my questions she said ‘no commit’ another words she would not give me any information to resolve this issue.

“Cindy Dunn personally gave me my change of address about two years ago.  Why does everyone have a hard time using this address, is it to make me look like I’m not working with the town/attorney.  Because it takes me longer to get my mail sometimes a couple of weeks later???”

Because of his property’s proximity to Route 117, Bishop was not eligible to apply for a junkyard permit. 

Bishop then uses this unique location of his property to draw the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) into his legal response. 

MDOT has begun a project to rebuild Route 117 from Paris to Turner.  Bishop seems to intimate that there is a conspiracy, between Buckfeild and MDOT, to deprive him of his property so that it can be converted into on-street parking.

“Has this anything to do about the highway being redone in front of my home,” he asks.  “As I understand the Highway Department (D.O.T.) was to put parking on the street in front of my house, and a few others up the street, I’m not the only one to under stand this, others told me they under stood the same.  But since then the state D.O.T. found they never bought the wrights in front of my house witch proves (with deeds) without a doubt that I own this and my land has to be bought or taken (by violation?) to be used as they (Town/ D.O.T.) first wanted.”

Local residents who think this legal filing signifies the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ are likely to be disappointed. A “Deadline for Discovery” in the case has been set for August 1, 2005.  Unless an out-of-court settlement is reached, other deadlines, among them the scheduling of an actual hearing, will not be triggered until after that date.