Permanent injunction sought to stop Edgewood Road barrier (Printed July 20, 2007)
Posted by Sentry Editor at 7/27/2007 10:47 AM 
Categories: Cape News, So Po News, Ward Peck, Transportation, Public Safety
Categories: Cape News, So Po News, Ward Peck, Transportation, Public Safety
By Ward Peck
Editor
Making good on an earlier threat to pursue legal action, the owners of two homes on Edgewood Road have filed a request for a permanent injunction against the city of South Portland to stop it from blocking their access over a discontinued portion of the road.
Bruce McGlauflin, attorney for Debra Sampson and Daniel Maguire of 59 Edgewood and Chris and Jayne Boulos of 60 Edgewood filed the request for an injunction on July 13 after the owners noticed South Portland Public Works employees had marked the disputed pavement in preparation for the project, which according to previous reports will include a landscaped berm to mark the border between the two municipalities and prohibit vehicular traffic.
The dispute between South Portland and Cape Elizabeth residents and town officials goes back to at least 2000 when developer Joe Frustaci received permission to develop a vacant parcel of land that abuts the formally–and still technically– dead end of Edgewood Road. At the time, South Portland’s city council voted to discontinue the final 25 feet of the road in South Portland, making it private property held by the abutting property owners in an effort to frustrate Frustaci’s plan to connect his development to Edgewood Road.
The discontinuance was complicated by the fact that the sole access for two homes over the municipal boundary in Cape Elizabeth was over Edgewood Road. In order to ensure those residents legal access to their property, the city council voted to grant easements allowing only those residents to use the discontinued portion of the road. (Frustaci sued the city over the discontinuance arguing it diminished the value of his property and was awarded $380,000 in 2005)
In the intervening years Frustaci built a road connecting the Cape Elizabeth portion of Edgewood Road to his development, giving the Cape Elizabeth residents a second means of accessing their property, but according to the injunction request the owners believed they still retained a permanent easement over the discontinued portion. The connection also allowed other motorists a shortcut to and from Cottage Road, which South Portland neighbors said posed safety hazards due to the speed and volume of the cut-through traffic.
In late 2006, the South Portland City Council moved to physically block access over the discontinued portion of the road, citing safety concerns and on Feb. 21, voted to invalidate the easements retained by the Cape Elizabeth residents.
In preparing the case for his client, McGlauflin, the Cape Elizabeth resident’s attorney was unable to locate the easements in question and it became clear that although the granting of those easements was ordered by the South Portland City Council and such easements were referenced on numerous occasions in the dispute, that order appears to have never been carried out.
Because the easements don’t exist, South Portland’s attorney, Mary Kahl said, the city has no obligation to honor them or compensate the Cape Elizabeth residents for taking those rights. Kahl said while it was the city’s responsibility to secure the easements, the residents also bear responsibility for allowing the mistake to go uncorrected for so long. Kahl said that at this point she has no intention of carrying out the seven-year old order because the action taken in February to extinguish those rights has made any such easements void.
McGlauflin argues that the council, city employees, including Kahl, and the residents have operated for seven years under the assumption that such easements exist and made numerous references to such easements and now denying those easements are valid constitutes an “estoppel” of the legal principles that have governed the dispute.
In addition to the request for an injunction, McGlauflin’s request includes a judgement for damages due the Cape Elizabeth residents based upon the taking of the easement rights without compensation or public purpose and violating their civil rights.
Kahl said the city agreed to a request by the judge that the city not to begin until a ruling on the request is made. A judgment could come as early as Aug. 3 or as late as September, depending on the judge’s schedule, Kahl said.
Editor
Making good on an earlier threat to pursue legal action, the owners of two homes on Edgewood Road have filed a request for a permanent injunction against the city of South Portland to stop it from blocking their access over a discontinued portion of the road.
Bruce McGlauflin, attorney for Debra Sampson and Daniel Maguire of 59 Edgewood and Chris and Jayne Boulos of 60 Edgewood filed the request for an injunction on July 13 after the owners noticed South Portland Public Works employees had marked the disputed pavement in preparation for the project, which according to previous reports will include a landscaped berm to mark the border between the two municipalities and prohibit vehicular traffic.
The dispute between South Portland and Cape Elizabeth residents and town officials goes back to at least 2000 when developer Joe Frustaci received permission to develop a vacant parcel of land that abuts the formally–and still technically– dead end of Edgewood Road. At the time, South Portland’s city council voted to discontinue the final 25 feet of the road in South Portland, making it private property held by the abutting property owners in an effort to frustrate Frustaci’s plan to connect his development to Edgewood Road.
The discontinuance was complicated by the fact that the sole access for two homes over the municipal boundary in Cape Elizabeth was over Edgewood Road. In order to ensure those residents legal access to their property, the city council voted to grant easements allowing only those residents to use the discontinued portion of the road. (Frustaci sued the city over the discontinuance arguing it diminished the value of his property and was awarded $380,000 in 2005)
In the intervening years Frustaci built a road connecting the Cape Elizabeth portion of Edgewood Road to his development, giving the Cape Elizabeth residents a second means of accessing their property, but according to the injunction request the owners believed they still retained a permanent easement over the discontinued portion. The connection also allowed other motorists a shortcut to and from Cottage Road, which South Portland neighbors said posed safety hazards due to the speed and volume of the cut-through traffic.
In late 2006, the South Portland City Council moved to physically block access over the discontinued portion of the road, citing safety concerns and on Feb. 21, voted to invalidate the easements retained by the Cape Elizabeth residents.
In preparing the case for his client, McGlauflin, the Cape Elizabeth resident’s attorney was unable to locate the easements in question and it became clear that although the granting of those easements was ordered by the South Portland City Council and such easements were referenced on numerous occasions in the dispute, that order appears to have never been carried out.
Because the easements don’t exist, South Portland’s attorney, Mary Kahl said, the city has no obligation to honor them or compensate the Cape Elizabeth residents for taking those rights. Kahl said while it was the city’s responsibility to secure the easements, the residents also bear responsibility for allowing the mistake to go uncorrected for so long. Kahl said that at this point she has no intention of carrying out the seven-year old order because the action taken in February to extinguish those rights has made any such easements void.
McGlauflin argues that the council, city employees, including Kahl, and the residents have operated for seven years under the assumption that such easements exist and made numerous references to such easements and now denying those easements are valid constitutes an “estoppel” of the legal principles that have governed the dispute.
In addition to the request for an injunction, McGlauflin’s request includes a judgement for damages due the Cape Elizabeth residents based upon the taking of the easement rights without compensation or public purpose and violating their civil rights.
Kahl said the city agreed to a request by the judge that the city not to begin until a ruling on the request is made. A judgment could come as early as Aug. 3 or as late as September, depending on the judge’s schedule, Kahl said.
Comments