DEERFIELD – The Attorney General’s Office has intervened in the land court complaint filed by residents of Steam Mill Road as the state “claims an ownership interest” in land that abuts or is bisected by the road.
Represented by Assistant Attorney General Kendra Kinscherf, the state argues that “any declaration regarding the status or underlying fee of Steam Mill Road will impact the Commonwealth’s title,” therefore it needs to intervene in order to maintain its property rights.
“Since the Commonwealth owns properties along Steam Mill Road, it has an interest in the subject matter of this action,” Kinscherf’s motion to intervene states. “Its ownership may be impaired by the requested relief, and none of the present parties can adequately represent the Commonwealth.”
The complaint, filed Nov. 30, seeks a determination from the court that Steam Mill Road is a public way and the town must continue to maintain it past 34 Steam Mill Road, as it has for at least the last 20 years. Residents Jamie, Jason and Randi Billings, who reside at 52 and 51 Steam Mill Road, based the complaint on a report Jason Billings commissioned to Easthampton-based land surveyors Holmberg and Howe Inc., which is signed by company president and professional land surveyor Emily Holmberg.
The court’s decision could affect the state’s property rights in several ways, according to the motion to intervene. If the road is determined to be a public way as set forth in Holmberg’s report, then the town would actually own that part of the property, not the state.
“The Commonwealth would not own a portion of the parcels that are bisected by Steam Mill Road,” the motion states. Additionally, the court’s decision would also determine the size of the road, which could reduce the size of the state’s parcels. With these potential outcomes hanging on the decision of the judge, “the Commonwealth’s lands therefore will be impacted by the Court’s decision and, as a result, the Commonwealth claims a sufficient interest in this action.”
Andrea Liebson, Jack Wileden, Norma, Kristin and Brett Gewanter, a group of five residents who have not joined the Billings’ lawsuit, wrote in a Feb. 8 My Turn in the Recorder that the town has been maintaining up to 60 Steam Mill Road for decades and the discontinuance of maintenance is “the town’s unjust solution to the plaintiff’s request” and that the Billings’ complaint is seeking more upgrades and maintenance beyond the stretch of 34 to 60 Steam Mill Road.
“We are asking that the town acknowledge that the plaintiff’s case and the situation with the residents affected on Steam Mill Road are two separate issues, and the other residents on the road should not be collateral damage to this lawsuit,” the group wrote. “No one, including the town, ever questioned it being anything other than a town road up to number 60 Steam Mill until this situation arose.”
The report, which uses an April 1992 document recorded in the Franklin County Registry of Deeds, claims the road was laid out as a public way in April 1741, therefore the town must maintain it. The Billings are being represented by Attorney Michael Pill, of Green Miles Lipton LLP in Northampton.
The court complaint features Holmberg’s report, which states the minutes of an April 10, 1741 meeting of the Proprietors of the East Mountain Division contain recommendations for public roads in Deerfield. The Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association (PVMA) library contains these minutes and other historical Deerfield records, according to the report.
The minutes describe five roads, of which Holmberg stated her opinion that the “fourth road described and approved at this meeting is Steam Mill Road.” She added the minutes from 1741 also contain the phrase, “Voted to accept that the land therein described is and shall be forever sequestered for roads in this property,” which Holmberg wrote validated her opinion that Steam Mill Road “satisfies the requirement for it to be designated as a public way.”
Holmberg also reviewed Town Meeting records ranging from 1730 to 1970 and found “no record of discontinuance of any portion of Steam Mill Road.” The 1952 Town Meeting “made no change to the legal status of any portion of Steam Mill Road” that wasn’t included in the 1952 layout.
A status conference on the matter is set for April 19 at 9 a.m.