We are residents of Steam Mill Road in Deerfield and would like to offer additional information pertinent to the article (Residents File Complaint Against Town in Road Dispute) published in the Weekend Recorder dated Jan. 29 and the Daily Hampshire Gazette on Jan. 31.
Steam Mill Road is a historic, partially dirt/partially paved road which abuts the Deerfield Town Forest, and several portions of the Connecticut River Greenway (a Massachusetts state park). The ownership of property along Steam Mill Road is well documented and may be seen by looking at a Deerfield assessors map. What has been brought into question through the Deerfield town counsel’s recent opinion is the ownership of a portion of Steam Mill Road itself.
For at least 60 years Steam Mill Road has been treated as a town road (regular maintenance, building permits issued, town road assessed values) up to number 60 Steam Mill. The lawsuit mentioned in the article is asking for the town to upgrade and maintain the portion past number 60 running south, to property recently purchased by the plaintiffs, a portion that has never been maintained by the town.
Beyond 60 Steam Mill, between the portion that the town has been maintaining and the plaintiff’s property, there is a private residency. The owners of this residency were granted a variance from the town of Deerfield in 1996 because they lacked frontage on a town road. As a result of this variance, the property owners have had to upgrade and maintain the said portion of the road for the last 26 years, and at their own expense.
Referencing back to the town attorney’s quote in the article stating that the maintenance has been “minor and incidental” on only the accepted portion, is inaccurate. The town has maintained the road up to number 60 Steam Mill as they have any other gravel road in Deerfield, with plowing, sanding, and grading a minimum of two times a year, as well as spreading gravel when needed.
The discontinuance of the road back to number 34 Steam Mill (not 41 as mentioned in the news article) is the town’s unjust solution to the plaintiff’s request that the road be upgraded and maintained to their property south of 60 Steam Mill. This solution shows complete disregard to the others who reside on the road. It is indisputable that the town has treated our road like any other town road for at least the last 60 years. All six of the homes on the section between number 34 and number 60 Steam Mill were built (the first in 1977 and the latest in 2019) without needing a special permit based on the widely-held belief that Steam Mill Road is an accepted (that is, public) town way. Our street is one of the strongest areas of growth in town, with four homes being built in the last six years. 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.
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. If it’s not a town road then who owns the road? Why should our property values be diminished because of this situation? Our only goal is to see the 1,500 feet between 34 and 60 Steam Mill officially recognized as a town road and to continue the maintenance that has been happening for the last six decades. Again, that’s 1,500 feet of road that they have already been maintaining for 60-plus years. In no way should this hinder the plaintiff’s case.
Andrea Liebson, Jack Wileden, Norma Gewanter, Kristin and Brett Gewanter are residents of Steam Mill Road.