HARPSWELL

A Superior Court judge on Wednesday ruled against a group of locals trying to save an old water tower at Mitchell Field from demolition.

The judge, Cumberland Superior Court Justice A. M. Horton, ruled that selectmen acted reasonably in rejecting a petition from the Friends of Mitchell Field and that the group did not follow Maine law in calling for an alternative town meeting.

“It gives the town what it wants, but it gives it on grounds that the town won’t be happy with,” said frequent Friends of Mitchell Field spokesman Robert McIntyre when reached for comment.

“We’re very pleased with the decision,” said Harpswell Town Attorney Amy Tchao. “I think it vindicated the town’s handling of this matter, and I think the court saw that the town acted fairly in dealing with the petitioners’ request from start to finish.”

The tower spat

The ruling is the most recent development in a months-long battle between the Friends of Mitchell Field and the town over the fate of the water tower.

The tower was originally installed in the mid-20th century by the Navy, which used Mitchell Field as a fuel depot. It’s been unused in the decades since the Navy abandoned the site and turned it over to the town. Although the town has had discussions about renovating or repurposing the water tower, those conversations have never produced any reasonable use for it.

Selectman David I. Chipman has been a vocal advocate over the years for using the tower as a water supply for Mitchell Field, but a study found that there were far cheaper ways to supply water to the property. The Harpswell Neck Fire Department has not expressed any interest or need for the additional water source.

The Friends of Mitchell Field have argued that the water tower is the ideal structure to house cellphone equipment, something that could be of great interest to residents on the Neck, where service is spotty.

The town, however, hasn’t found a company with serious interest in installing equipment on the tower. The only two companies to express any interest in doing so ultimately withdrew their bids.

After years of debate, the town presented voters with a choice at their annual town meeting in March: Allow an outside group to take over management of the tower, or have it demolished. Harpswell voters decided it was time to demolish it.

The Friends of Mitchell Field, which had been formed by a small handful of Harpswell residents with the express intent of taking over management of the water tower, were unhappy with that result and, in the following months, would work tirelessly to overturn that decision.

In April, the group produced a petition calling for a revote on demolishing the water tower, claiming that the town meeting vote was based on misinformation. Selectmen denied that petition.

However, Friends of Mitchell Field argued that the selectmen were wrong to deny a petition with valid signatures, and went ahead with organizing their own unauthorized town meeting. The town’s attorney claimed that the warrant for that town meeting was invalid, and shortly thereafter the Friends of Mitchell Field filed a lawsuit against the town.

The lawsuit rested on two main arguments. First, the group claimed that the selectmen broke the law by rejecting the petition. Secondly, they argue that their warrant calling for a town meeting through a public notary was valid.

In his ruling, Horton rejected both claims.

Horton said selectmen are well within their authority to reject petitions calling for a revote of an issue recently voted on at town meeting, such as the demolition of the water tower. He also pointed out that the Friends of Mitchell Field were wrong to use that same petition to call for a town meeting after the selectmen rejected it. In order to call for a town meeting through a public notary, the Friends of Mitchell Field would have to a circulate a separate petition for that purpose, he said.

McIntyre said that the Friends of Mitchell Field would be meeting this week to discuss whether the group would pursue an appeal. McIntyre said that the group was relying on advice from “the leading expert” on the petition process, although he would not disclose the name of that person.

nstrout@timesrecord.com