Fence in Peru right-of-way damaged
PERU — Winter snow removal has its hazards, including damage to property within a town's right of way.
At a selectmen meeting on Monday, the board discussed what to do about a fence on East Shore Road that was damaged during snowplowing last winter. The landowner who had put it up next to his property had asked whether the town would pay the cost of repairing it.
"It's one of those that's 2 or 3 feet off the shoulder," said Road Commissioner Joe Roach. "This has been there a long time."
Chairman James Pulsifer said the town shouldn't pay for anything damaged within the town's right of way during normal snow removal. Selectman Tim Holland concurred.
"When you get as much snow as we've gotten the past few years, something's going to get damaged," Holland said. "I don't think the town should be liable for Mother Nature. This is normal plowing for public safety."
Pulsifer wanted the board to address who would be responsible for damage to items in the town's right of way, adding that consistency was important. The board and Roach admitted it was tough to make the landowner pay for the damage, but the town needed to adhere to a consistent policy.
The board voted unanimously to have landowners pay for damage caused by normal snow removal to items placed by that property owner in the right of way. Pulsifer noted that this was consistent with past town practices.
Although it was unclear whether a lightning strike or a power surge knocked out the burglar and fire alarm system in the Town Office and former Peru Elementary School building, the selectmen voted to purchase a new $1,600 system from Simplex Grinnell.
New guard rails will soon be going up on Packard and Dickvale Roads. Selectmen voted to accept a proposal from Main Line Fence of Cumberland for $5,380 to put in guardrails for sections of the roads.
Roach said he expected the work to be completed in September.
With SAD 21 dissolved and the Western Foothills Regional School Unit 10 taking its place, some money is coming back to Peru in the form of carryover funds. Ordinarily, the money would be rolled into the school district's surplus, but because SAD 21 no longer exists, selectmen were faced with a decision on what to do with the funds.
The board voted to take back the $22,299 in undesignated money. The funds will be spent on town projects.
In a letter to the town, resident James Bigos requested copies of reports of several incidents with dogs that his family had experienced. He noted that his daughter was attacked by a dog this spring, and there have also been instances of dogs damaging shrubbery around his residence.
The board asked Animal Control Officer Dan Carrier if he had been able to contact the dog owner whose animal had bitten the Bigos' daughter. Carrier responded that he had been unable to contact the individual whose dog was responsible.
"Until we make contact with the dog owner, there's nothing I can do for him," Carrier said.
Jim Bigos says
Dont let the Town selectmen fill your ears with bullshi...t, we have Laws to proptect us and our property, and we also have this thing their unaware of called the constitution!!
File a small claims case against the Town of Peru and let a judge determine if they owe you! Its not God driving those plow trucks, and why does the State of Maine require all the Towns vehicles be insured? which we the taxpayers fund!! Stick up for yourself, the Town or any else wont!!
_____________________________________________
16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0016
Longtime Buildings and Fences Law
The boundaries of a road may be changed by the long existence of buildings and fences in the right of way (23 M.R.S.A. § 2952). The length of time required will depend on whether the road boundaries are known or unknown in the first place. This law is an exception to the well established rule that public property cannot be taken by adverse possession (Town of Sedgwick v. Butler, 1998 ME 280, 722 A.2d 357) or by prescriptive use (Libby v. Tobey, 82 Me. 391 (1890)). This law is not really a method to establish road boundaries; it is more accurately a limitation on the town's ability to set road boundaries. Boundaries Unknown. Where the road boundaries are unknown and cannot be made certain by records or monuments, any buildings or fences fronting the road which have been in existence more than 20 years will be deemed to be the true bounds of the road. For example, if the road boundaries are unknown, and there is a IOO-year old stone wall abutting each side of the road, those walls will be the boundaries. This law should not be used by the town to take property for highway purposes. For example, where the boundaries ofa road are unknown, but there is a stone wall 200 feet back from the travel way, the town should not claim that the stone wall is the road boundary, because that wall does not really "front" the road. In that situation, it is more appropriate to use the Lost Boundary Statute or some other method for determining the true bounds.
Boundaries Known. Where the road boundaries are known, any building or fence which encroaches within these bounds and is allowed to remain there for 40 years or more will be deemed to exist legally, and thus will narrow the true boundary of the road. It is very important, therefore, to prevent such encroachments. Note that this provision applies only to the extent that the building or fence physically exists. For example, a road is 2 miles long and 40 feet wide (boundaries are known). A 20o-foot long chicken barn was built 50 years ago and it encroaches 4 feet into the road boundary. The barn is now legally allowed to remain, and the road width is 36 feet for the length of the barn. The remainder of the road is still 40 feet wide.
In view of23 M.R.S.A. § 2952, municipal officials should be attentive to buildings and fences near or within road boundaries, and should take steps to remove them (see Chapter 6) before the statute protects their encroachment. MOOT has the authority to establish he boundaries of state and state aid highways under 23 M.R.S.A. § 653.