The primary contention was that the discontinuance did not negate the repair order.
FARMINGTON – The state’s highest court ruled Thursday that Farmington voters’ decision to discontinue a portion of Hovey Road was legal.

Tree farmer Perry Lamb of New Sharon and Brunswick appealed to the Maine Judicial Supreme Court a 2003 Franklin County Superior Court ruling that affirmed an order of the town discontinuing a half-mile of upper Hovey Road.

Lamb owns 1,600 acres in New Sharon, some of it abutting the Farmington line. He filed a suit in 1999 against New Sharon, Farmington and Franklin County commissioners over four country roads that interlock. Lamb claimed the discontinuance of the roads landlocked more than a 100 acres of his property. The court ruled in favor of the towns on three roads leaving only the status of upper Hovey Road in Farmington unresolved.

All parties agreed to a Nov. 15, 2001, court settlement on Hovey Road.

But after Farmington voters’ discontinued the road before adhering to the county’s order fixing it, Lamb questioned whether the town had the right to do that. He also took issue with what he claimed was misinformation given to voters over the 2001 settlement.

Lamb’s primary contention was that the road discontinuance order did not negate the county commissioners’ repair order.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision concluded the statue authorizing a town to discontinue a road has no requirements regarding outstanding road repair.

The statute does not make a discontinuance order conditional upon a town complying with a repair order, the court stated.

There is no cross-reference in the discontinuance statute to the road repair statute, the court concluded.

“We are unwilling to imply any statutory requirement that a town that discontinues a road remains obligated to obey a repair order issued pursuant to the road repair statute.”

The court also stated that there is nothing in the terms of the 2001-settlement order that required the town to make any repairs.

The settlement ordered commissioners to give notice to the town as to what repairs should be made and the time period within which to make the repairs.

The town could not commence discontinuance proceeding until the county commissioners acted.

The settlement order was silent as to whether the town remained obligated to repair the road even if it discontinued it, the court stated.

Therefore, the town’s discontinuance order does not contravene the earlier related settlement order.

In regard to Lamb’s complaint about misrepresentation to town voters, specifically town officials stating the town would avoid the repair costs if the town voted to discontinue the road, the court concluded that was the town officials’ interpretation of the settlement order.

Lamb and others had the opportunity to give their interpretation of the order, the court stated.

The settlement order was available for any voter to review and draw his or her own conclusions about whether the town officials’ interpretation was correct, the court concluded.

Given that the settlement order was available, even if the town officials made a misleading statement, instead of a statement of interpretation, “we would be loathe to grant the drastic remedy of over turning the results of an election on that basis,” the court noted.
[email protected]