WE NEED YOUR INPUT!  There are two upcoming legislative efforts. The

first is an effort to come up with legislation allowing SMALL ROAD ASSOCIATIONS where there are four or fewer residences. What do

MARA members want them to know?

The second is  a Legislative Subcommittee that will be studying the

issues surrounding ABANDONED AND DISCONTINUED ROADS. Are

there concerns that MARA should bring before them?

Regarding the small road associations, the current laws allow the

formation of a statutory road association where there are four or more

land owners. This leaves a gap where there are three or fewer, and

mortgage lenders often will not approve a mortgage unless it can be

shown how the access to the property will be maintained.

The bill as proposed last session had some problems, including

definitions that conflicted with the existing statutes. There was also an ambiguous overlap, as a statutory road association can have more than

four land owners but only four or fewer residences. Which law would

apply?

The new law as proposed would have bypassed many of the protections incorporated into the existing road association statutes, including

possibly allowing one owner to demand expensive upgrades the other

owners did not want or could not afford.

You can read the text of the bill as originally proposed here:

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_129th/billtexts/

HP115701.asp   (You will have to copy and paste the link to get it to work, as this site has too narrow a column to accept it on one line.)

ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS?

Regarding abandoned and discontinued roads, there remain issues of

properties becoming land locked, either through extinguishment of the easement, or through unrestricted public use of public easements in the absence of public maintenance.

Roads that cross town lines can be particularly problematic, as one town

has no legal obligation to the properties in another town that may have

no other access. Is there any way to restore access once it's gone?

Abandonment was supposed to be a one-time opportunity for towns to

get rid of roads that had been long since forgotten and no longer

needed by anyone. Instead, it continues to be used as a method of

relieving towns of their obligation to repair deteriorating roads, and

to avoid the expense of compensating land owners for loss of access,

as would be required in a formal discontinuance.

Some towns have declared roads abandoned in spite of evidence to the contrary, and the only way to overturn the determination of the

Selectmen is through costly Court action. Does this really satisfy due

process? Shouldn't there be a more accessible review?

Many towns don't even know the legal status of some of their roads

, and are reluctant to allow residents access to the records. In other

towns, uninformed town officials have given out faulty information

, little knowing the dire consequences that can have.

AGAIN, COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS?