Sangerville voters approve funds for survey and legal steps after access to town woodlot is blocked

Town residents on March 28 approved an article directing the select board to spend up to the recommended amount to survey and pursue preliminary legal options to restore access to a town-owned woodlot that has been blocked by a neighboring landowner.

Jeff Peters, who read an opinion prepared by the town attorney Kristen, told the meeting the funds would pay for a survey to determine the size and location of the traditional road and would allow the town to consider legal remedies. "These funds will allow the select board to complete that litigation, complete the survey, and then work with the town attorney to determine the best path forward," Peters said, reading the attorney's advice to the assembly.

The item (Article 31) was framed as a first step: the attorney's statement noted options that could follow the survey include a quiet-title action or eminent domain, but neither action has been initiated. Peters said any further steps would be brought back to voters if more funding were required.

John Armstrong, chair of the town forestry committee, urged support and described the woods as a significant town asset. "It's government land that was given to us in the bank Jones act… Every year that the sun shines and it rains, trees grow. We're growing land. We're growing money on that land," Armstrong said, arguing for careful management and access so the town can complete a new comprehensive management plan.

Residents described a locked gate and restricted access. According to testimony, a private landowner, identified in the transcript as Mr. Kenny, has blocked the historic route into the woodlot; town presenters said the road has been used since the 1800s and that survey and legal work are needed to clarify town rights and restore access. Peters read the attorney's account that, although landowners have some rights to survey access, the town had to obtain a warrant in the past for surveyors and that the case is now under appeal to the state supreme judicial court.

A separate warrant item (Article 34) that would have authorized the select board to negotiate a sale/settlement with Mr. Kenny under specified principal terms — including a purchase price split and an access guarantee — drew extended debate. The select board said language in the proposed settlement came from conversations with the owner's lawyer, but the board ultimately recommended taking no action on that article at present because of inconsistent public statements from the owner's side and outstanding federal restrictions on the property. Voters defeated Article 34 by voice vote.

The meeting record shows the town will proceed with the survey and initial legal steps; the select board and town attorney told residents they will return to a future town meeting if additional appropriations or decisions are required.