Lawyers continue Camden tannery fray

CAMDEN – Lawyers have shot letters at each other over the controversy involving the disposition of the Apollo Tannery site and a strip of land adjacent to the tannery and the Megunticook River.

The Camden Citizens for Megunticook Riverwalk want the town of Camden to hold a special town meeting to vote on two articles they wrote that deal with the tannery. Town Manager Roberta Smith said Wednesday that she has not received a request for a special town meeting, but said a request may have gone to Town Attorney William S. Kelly, who is on vacation until Monday.

The Select Board declined to place the citizens group’s articles on the June town meeting warrant, instead placing its own articles on the warrant.

The board’s articles authorized the sale of the entire tannery property to a qualified buyer, subject to conditions, and made provision to retain a 25-foot strip of land adjacent to the Megunticook River for public use, excluding it from any future contract to sell the tannery. Voters approved the Select Board’s two articles at the June 10 annual town meeting.

The members of the citizens group feel they have a grievance because the Select Board, in rejecting their petitioned articles, stepped on their constitutional rights. Their attorney, John C. Bannon of Portland, has called the board’s action illegal under Maine law, which allows residents the right to petition and have their articles voted on by the public.

When Select Board members voted to exclude the citizens group articles from the warrant, they said they were exercising discretionary authority, stating that the articles, if enacted, would be “unenforceable, unconstitutional or illegal, in any respect.”

Even though the Select Board’s articles passed on June 10, the citizens group is concerned that the tannery might be sold without adequately protecting the strip along the river. The Select Board’s article made no provision for an easement under the protection of a third-party organization.

Kelly, the town’s attorney, on June 11 answered a letter from Bannon, citing Maine case law to support the board’s decision: “Your commentary ignores the fact that the Petitioners may easily challenge the Select Board’s rejection by seeking any notary public and calling their own meeting.”

He reiterated an earlier statement that a town meeting may be called by any successful petitioner “at any time if they believe that the Select Board’s rejection was unreasonable,” noting “Access to a public vote could not be more clearly stated in the section.”

Kelly offered to meet with Bannon and the petitioners to discuss the articles.

In his response to Kelly on June 13, Bannon said that Kelly had cited legal cases that did not apply to the issue.

“You contend that the Select Board reasonably refused to honor the Citizens’ petition because the board members ‘have a responsibility to vote their best judgment on what is best for the town,'” Bannon said, arguing that the board did not have the authority to vote on behalf of the town. He called on the board and Town Manager Roberta Smith to meet with him and the petitioners to discuss a means to “cure” the error in rejecting the petitions.

“Because nothing could be simpler than for the town to call a special town meeting for consideration of the petitioned articles, the agenda should be no more complex than determining how the town can go about calling that meeting,” Bannon said.

The citizens group contends the wording of the Select Board’s articles isn’t specific enough.

The first of the two articles would bar the Select Board from closing on the sale of the property until it obtained voter approval of the terms of the sale and the identity of the buyer.

The second article would reserve the 25-foot-wide strip of land along the Megunticook River for use as a permanent public access area protected by an easement held by a third-party charitable organization, such as a land trust.

In a narrative attached to the articles, the citizens group said its proposal was consistent with the recommendation in the Camden Comprehensive Plan that states that the river should be considered a scenic corridor where views and existing public access should be protected. It also said the town should consider opportunities to enhance the area for nonmotorized recreation, including sightseeing, walking, picnicking and similar activities.

The Camden Conservation Commission supports the town’s ownership of the strip and permanent public access to the strip along the river, the citizens group said.

Members of the citizens group said they were concerned voters would not see or be aware of the details of the disposition of the site because the Select Board’s articles omitted them.

gchappell@bangordailynews.net

236-4598