Has anyone had to tow another residents' vehicle that is intefering with the ROW?

As a follow up, please look at the new post on E911, and on my response to it.  I had thought that Title 17-A section 505 did not apply to private roads, but only to roads that are maintained at public expense.  Well, in response to the E911 post, I looked it up once again and found that it was amended in 2017, and now defines "public way" as including ways "upon which the public has access as invitees or licensees."   So the new version of the statute DOES appear to apply to private roads.  Here is a link to the statute: http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec505.html  I would suggest printing it out and keeping it on hand to give to the responding officer if your road gets obstructed again.  My apology for not having been aware of the revision of this statute sooner.

I just ran across another statute that might be helpful for you if this situation arises again.  My recommendation would be to have a copy of the statutes in hand when you call the police. 

Title 17  §3853-C. Trespass by motor vehicle; civil violation

1.  Violation.  A person may not park a motor vehicle or allow a motor vehicle under that person's control to remain parked:  

A. In a private drive or private way in a manner that blocks or interferes with the free passage of other vehicles without the permission of the owner of that private drive or way; or   [PL 2011, c. 561, §2 (NEW).]

B. On a public highway in a manner that blocks the entrance to a private driveway, gate or barway.   [PL 2011, c. 561, §2 (NEW).]

2.  Penalty.  A person who violates subsection 1 commits a civil violation for which a fine of not less than $500 must be adjudged.  

3.  Registered owner's liability for vehicle.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a registered owner of a vehicle involved in a violation of subsection 1 has that vehicle under that person's control.  

The one problem I see with this is the use of the term "private way."  If you use the definition of private way in 23 MRSA section 3021, they could argue that section 3853-C only applies to public easements.  But if you use the definition in 29-A MRSA section 101, paragraph 58, 

Private way.  "Private way" means a way privately owned and maintained over which the owner may restrict use or passage and includes a discontinued way even if a public recreation easement has been reserved.  

So that would make section 3853-C apply to private roads where there is no public easement.  This is one of the reasons I have argued for years that we need to go through all of the statutes and make sure the term "private way" is used consistently, or replace it with two clearly defined terms - one for privately owned roads and one for roads that are open to unrestricted public use.  Unfortunately the waters have been further muddied in recent years by the practice of accepting private roads as public easements with the intent of allowing public snow removal.  Even the definition in paragraph 58 above is in itself a contradiction in terms.  Discontinued ways are now automatically retained not simply as recreation easements but as public easements that provide full public motor vehicular access, removing the owner's right to restrict access.