Thomaston couple in trouble with DEP > Former town manager, wife say their excavation was to restore wetlands

loading...

THOMASTON – The state has stepped into some muddy litigation over an acre of ground owned by a former Thomaston official and his wife who tried to restore a stream bank on the property but wound up with a stop-work order amid reports they were excavating $10,000 worth of the town drainage system.

The state Department of Environmental Protection found violations last week at the Booker Street property which was excavated early last week and is owned by former Town Manager William Judson and his wife Theresa Judson.

The Judsons have been in court with the town for more than a year.

“We knew they would,” William Judson said, referring to DEP’s inspection. “We just didn’t have a chance to finish.”

Judson said excavation began on the site in an attempt to restore the property to its natural wetlands state.

The work stoppage left what looks like bare ground over most of the parcel, pools of water and mud everywhere, and pieces of a 36-inch-diameter culvert torn out and left scattered about.

“It would look a whole lot different” if the town had not obtained the stop-work order Monday and let him finish the job, Judson said Monday.

DEP spokesman Jim Cassida said the agency will send Judson a second notice of violation to restore a stream bank and “at some point” wetlands. The state is also considering imposing a fine, he said, adding, “It’s probable.”

Town officials and attorneys were hesitant to comment on what is driving the volley of legal actions in the case, but the town’s lawyer, Jon Haddow of Bangor, said he thinks Judson may be vindictive. “I believe that he is angry because he believes – whether it’s true or not – that the town instituted a DEP complaint against him,” Haddow said.

Judson could not be reached Tuesday to respond to that characterization.

Judson was town manager from 1987 to 1988 and from 1990 to 1993, when he left the town’s employment on a Worker’s Compensation stress claim. During 1993, the town was in the midst of turmoil, and Judson was the primary target of that hostility.

“He certainly has expressed hard feelings about that,” Haddow said.

Ultimately, Judson won his stress claim, which was settled for $48,600. The couple, who now live in Cushing, bought a Booker Street home in 1991 and sold it April 21, 1996. However, they retained ownership of the neighboring 1-acre parcel.

The legal entanglement started about four years ago when the community upgraded a more than decade-old town drainage system that runs across the Judson property.

The upgrade was to relieve flooding problems in the area. The town, however, never had easements to improve the drainage system in 1996 or in 1982 when the system was built.

Code Enforcement Officer Peter Surek said Monday that it was his understanding that the town wrote letters to Judson about the planned 1996 drainage work, but got no response.

When asked if the town could take a portion of the Judsons’ land by eminent domain, Haddow said he thought it could and that town officials had talked about it.

In May 1999, the Judsons filed a lawsuit seeking $300,000 in damages, claiming that the town had drainage pipes installed on their property without permission.

The Judsons claim that drainage work completed by the town in 1996 was done at the behest of neighbor Lee-Ann Upham, and that she and her husband, John, were maintaining a portion of the Judsons’ land as if they owned it. The rear of Uphams’ land abuts the back of Judsons’ parcel.

In late 1999, the Judsons obtained permission from the state DEP to alter the land by removing about 900 cubic yards of fill and underground openings or culverts. That permit is valid for two years, Cassida said.

In his permit request, Judson wrote that he wanted to restore the property to its original condition of “one free-flowing stream.”

“This project is to offset a portion of the destruction of the wetlands and wildlife habitat destroyed by the town of Thomaston,” Judson wrote. He was referring to the town’s construction of a sewage treatment facility close to his land. He claimed the plant was built in a federal deer wintering area.

The Judsons’ small piece of land is situated near a housing development.

When town officials heard Judson was going to start digging up their drainage system, they obtained a temporary injunction in January to prevent excavation until a hearing could be held. That hearing has yet to be held.

In September, the town and the Judsons’ attorney, Randal Watkinson, appeared to have finally reached a settlement agreement.

The terms provided for the town to obtain a 35-foot-wide strip of Judsons’ property by deed, running the length of the back of the parcel. In exchange for the deed, the Judsons were to receive $10,000 and the right to connect to the town’s storm water system.

Meanwhile, Judson began some excavation in October, which was reported to DEP by the town’s code officer. DEP inspected the property and cited Judson for violating the Natural Resources Protection Act. He was ordered to repair the side of a stream disturbed by the October work by Nov. 13.

Last week, Judson claimed he had never seen or signed any settlement agreement nor had he been aware of the January injunction.

The town’s attorney filed a contempt of court motion last week based on an alleged violation of the initial injunction. That document seeks jail time and fines for the Judsons.

Another temporary injunction was obtained Nov. 13, Haddow said, because Judson “was ignoring the first one.”

According to Cassida, Judson removed much more material than he was allowed to in his permit. An area of 4,300 square feet of fresh water wetland may be altered by a property owner once, he said.

“He’s gone well over that,” Cassida said, estimating that “well over 10,000 square feet” have been altered.

The Judsons’ attorney did not return a telephone call to the newspaper Tuesday.