GREENFIELD — Both the defendants and the plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial in Franklin County Superior Court to settle a dispute over the Montague Center Complete Streets project.
Plaintiffs Deborah Snow and Barbara White of Montague Center, represented by attorney John McNally, and the town of Montague as the defendant, represented by attorneys Greg Corbo and Hayley Reifeiss at KP Law, presented their arguments before Judge Charles W. Groce III on Tuesday regarding the plaintiffs’ emergency motion of injunctive relief. McNally had put forth an ex parte motion in August requesting a temporary restraining order against the town and seeking to halt any roadwork that would occur in front of the plaintiffs’ North Street property as part of the Complete Streets project.
Plaintiffs’ arguments
The redesign work looks to make roadway safety improvements in Montague Center, according to the project overview page on the town’s website. Goals include reducing vehicle speeds, providing safer and more attractive crosswalks for pedestrians, formalizing on-street parking and making sure all improvements meet accessibility standards, among others. The project is funded through a nearly $500,000 grant from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
The design contested in the civil case is an updated version from the original design that was presented on Sept. 5, 2024, by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin. The redesign was presented on Jan. 5, 2026. For North Street specifically, the updated designs from Bowman Engineering show that the intersection with Main Street will be a 90-degree single connection, improving safety for cyclists and allowing for safer turns.
Between Jan. 5 and Jan. 12, 2026, the town sought feedback from residents about these plans. In August, the plaintiffs received a response from the town, in which the town said it did not find any legal need for “property-owner approval or right-of-entry agreement,” and relied on public meetings to get information out, rather than individual written notices.
The motion argues that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in trial, alleging the town did not follow state law regarding Town Meeting requirements or notice to abutters. The plaintiffs argue the “entire character of their home and property” could be changed, and that they have not received sufficient answers from the town about the project’s impact. The argument also states that the town could revert back to using its previous design.
The complaint cites Massachusetts case law in arguing that a contract being signed with a third-party vendor amounts to a discontinuance of a town way, and no Town Meeting was held on this matter. Additionally, the complaint cites Mass General Law Chapter 82, Section 22, which states that at least seven days before any changes to a town or private way are made, a written notice must be left at the property owners’ “usual place of abode.”
The designs require a 31-foot extension of the existing driveway, the complaint notes, along with an extension of green space in front of the plaintiffs’ home, although the town hasn’t stated who will be responsible for maintaining the added driveway and green space, who can have access to that space, whether the home will be compliant with zoning bylaws and whether the plaintiffs have a legal right to access their home.
The town’s response
The town of Montague responded via legal counsel on Sept. 16, requesting the court deny the plaintiff’s emergency motion of injunctive relief. A number of exhibits were provided, including communications between Snow and White and the town from January 2026 to August 2026, along with sworn affidavits from Assistant Town Administrator Chris Nolan-Zeller and Montague resident William Quale.
The response states that the plaintiffs have not met the criteria for seeking injunctive relief. Its argument is that the plaintiffs don’t have the right to demand public ways abutting their property stay in their original design forever, there is no discontinuance of a public way occurring that requires a Town Meeting vote or notice to abutters, and if the plaintiffs were entitled to notice of the Complete Streets project, they received it, citing the communications between Montague and the plaintiffs.
It is argued that if the town can’t complete the project, it would impact the public through roadway safety improvements not being addressed and the town could lose its $500,000 grant. Montague’s response adds that the plaintiffs brought the civil case in bad faith as, despite claims of not being notified of project plans, the plaintiffs had received written notice of the project seven months in advance of construction and the complaint was filed at a time the plaintiffs knew would cause delays in the project’s start date, with “the intent of derailing an important public project for their own selfish means.”
Prior to Tuesday’s court session, McNally, on behalf of Snow and White, filed a reply to the defense’s Sept. 16 argument.
Courtroom arguments
Both sides argued their case to Groce, who asked questions of both McNally and Reifeiss on some of the basics of what is, and what is not, being proposed by the town.
Groce inquired if monetary damages could be paid as a legal resolution to the issue, to which McNally said this isn’t a case of eminent domain, and the “crux” of this issue is the right of his clients to “vindicate right to proper process.”
Reifeiss argued there is neither a discontinuance or property taking at play, and rather, it’s the realignment of a roadway that the town has authority to change without abutter notification when public access is retained.
When Groce inquired about access with the new driveway proposal and the green space, Reifeiss explained driveway access would be retained, even if parts of the public way are going to become green space and sidewalk.
Groce said a decision will be rendered prior to a Nov. 16 status conference. Work has commenced on the Complete Streets project, except for North Street in the contested area.
