STRONG — Selectmen have once again launched a review of an ongoing and tumultuous property tax abatement quarrel between a family of landowners and the town. Among those to review the history are two selectmen who are new to the board.

The quarrel has recently reignited, with a member of the Voter family threatening each of the selectmen with civil action in Franklin County Superior Court.

And, at last week’s meeting, Vice Chairman Rupert Pratt and audience members exchanged angry remarks after he banged his gavel and insisted individuals be recognized before speaking.

So on Monday Selectman Joan Reed, elected to the board in March, requested a Maine State Police trooper attend the evening meeting to help keep order. “I didn’t want what happened last week to happen again,” Reed said.

The conflict began two decades ago when Vernon Voter and his mother, Georgena, divided approximately 30 acres of land behind their family home on Church Hill Road. Voter’s brother Wendall owns an abutting 108 acres with road frontage on the discontinued Hunter Road.

Because the town discontinued the Dickey Road more than 60 years ago, Roger and Kathleen Lambert have a fee simple title to the road and had allowed the families to use two woods roads off the Dickey Road to access their properties. Another brother, Mahlon Voter, now deceased, also had used the road to get logs to the town road. The Lamberts allowed access to a designated snowmobile trail, ATV use, and hunting.

After the Shurtleffs, who are related to the Voters, began constructing a camp on their lot, the Lamberts’ attorney did a title search of their property to determine if there had been any easements or encumbrances over the past 150 years. The attorney then sent a letter requesting that the Voters and Shurtleffs not access their camp over the Lambert’s property. The Voters and Shurtleffs filed a lawsuit against the Lamberts for both prescriptive (traditional) use and an implied right-of-way; they lost their case in Franklin County Superior Court and an appeal in the Maine Judicial Supreme Court.

“The Voters failed to demonstrate that they have acquired any easement over, right of way upon, or other interest in the Lamberts’ property, including certain roads that cross the Lamberts’ land,” the Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 9, 2008.

The Voters and Shurtleffs then submitted abatement applications to selectmen for 2009. Assessors’ agent Robert Worthley recommended and selectmen approved a 20 percent valuation adjustment only for the two property owners who had limited access.

They unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Franklin County Commissioners, who chose to take no action on the request. They appealed to the Franklin County Superior Court, but the case was dismissed because their attorney did not act within the required time limit.

After a contentious selectmen’s meeting last week, town officials scheduled a special meeting Monday with Worthley to review the history of the abatement applications and court rulings.

Worthley said property tax abatements normally request dollar amounts, rather than percentages. Also, landowners who claim other losses, such as income, must provide additional documentation. Bypassing those standards could encourage other landowners to apply for the same tax reduction.

“I think that these properties were valued fairly and equitably when compared to all the other values in town,” Worthley said. “It’s always important in assessing systems that everybody be treated the same and be treated fairly, because when you start making exceptions for one, then others will find reasons to want the same exception, and pretty soon, your system is all distorted.”

Wendall Voter warned selectmen last week that the family will subpoena selectmen.

“Three weeks ago, you received a preliminary summons,” he said. “It was a summons to (Franklin County) Superior Court which has to do with this abatement process, and you all will attend.”

On Monday, Selectman Michael Carleton requested Voter consider a delay or even dismiss the family’s pending lawsuit, saying he’d like time to investigate the history of the dispute. Audience member Gil Reed supported that option, asking Voter to consider a delay in legal action and work with selectmen to find a solution.

“People can look at it as the Voters making the town spend a lot of money,” Reed said. “As an outsider and a taxpayer, what harm would it do?”

Voter said the pending lawsuit was irreversible.

“I’ve had enough of this town and enough of this discrimination and this hate,” he said. “Me and my family have had enough.”

Selectmen voted to request their attorney seek an extension but file for dismissal if an extension was not possible.

Selectman James Burrill suggested the town was spending more money to go to court each year than the abatement amount was worth and that selectmen could go to court without an attorney to represent them.

“Our attorney is stating that our new strategy is to go for dismissal on the grounds that the case isn’t presented right,” he said. “The attorney readily admits all of this is a Band-Aid, a $4,000 Band-Aid to save $1,700, and it’s going to come up again in December.”

Burrill was on the board in 2009 and voted to grant the first abatement requests. He was defeated the next year in his bid for re-election, and he suggested at a 2010 special town meeting that taxpayers raise $1 for selectmen’s legal fees to defend the town.