WOOLWICH — A Massachusetts couple is pushing back after the Bath Water District blocked an access road the family has used for a century to access their Woolwich camp on Nequasset Lake.
The water district argues it can no longer allow access to the camp over the road, which will be demolished as a result of a $3.6 million expansion project. The district plans to add a fence around the property as a security measure to comply with federal regulations.
Nequasset Lake is part of a 21 square-mile watershed and the sole water source for the Bath Water District, feeding into 3,000 homes and businesses. Most of the lake is in Woolwich.
Gayle and Robert Edson of Massachusetts attended the Woolwich Planning Board Monday night hoping the board would determine they could still access their camp via the water district’s property.
The Edsons say they have owned the property located next to the Bath Water District pumping station, since 1905. The camp was built on the property in 1910 by relatives of Robert Edson’s grandfather. His grandfather purchased the camp, Rock Cottage, after he retired from the Boston and Maine Railroad.
Family members used to park their cars at the pumping station and walk a path to the camp. In the 1970s, the Edsons constructed a road from the pump station to their camp.
“(The water district) has always given us keys and security codes to the security gates to access the road to our place,” Robert Edson told The Times Record. “We were totally blindsided when we received a letter from a lawyer representing the (district), stating immediately, we cannot use the road any longer.”
There are no other camp properties that rely on the access road.
He argued that the letter states that their deeded right of way is not on the water district property but somewhere else through the woods, “but will not tell us where.”
He said Wednesday he spent another $7,000 to get his own survey of the property that was unable to determine the exact location of the right-of-way.
Building a new road may also prove cost prohibitive. They said an estimate by Jack Shaw, also the town’s road commissioner, put the cost for a new road at upwards of $60,000.
Superintendent Trevor Hunt said Tuesday that the Bath Water District decided late last year that it was time to move forward with an expansion project at the regional pump station serving 10,000 ratepayers from east Brunswick to Bath and nearly 800 more as the supplier of water for the Wiscasset Water District.
Hunt said the pump station is located on a fairly narrow strip of land, limiting options as to how the expansion can proceed. There are also new federal regulations in play. As a result, a chain link fence will be constructed around the property.
Hunt said their attorney found that it doesn’t matter how long the Edsons have used the access road, because the water district is a government entity. Thus, the Edsons do not have a legal right to continue using the road.
Hunt said the couple could access their property through easements over their neighbor’s property. However, the water district can’t continue to accommodate them.
“It’s unfortunate for the people involved,” Hunt said. “You can’t be complying with regulations on one hand and be sympathetic on the other hand. We have to meet the requirements and expectations of our customers first, and that’s how we see it.”
Hunt said that unauthorized vehicles have been found on the property, leading the water district to assume Edsons have given the codes to unauthorized people. That highlights the security concern.
Robert Edson said he had contractors doing work to the camp.
Planning board chairman Gregg Buczkowski said his board doesn’t have the expertise or authority to weigh in on the easement issue. After a lengthy discussion, the board voted that the town’s site plan ordinance isn’t applicable to the water district’s proposal because the water district is a quasi-municipal entity rather than a commercial entity.
Planning Board member Tom Stoddard, who argued the water district does conduct commerce and should be subject to the site plan ordinance, was the sole opposing vote by the seven-member board.
Wednesday, the Edsons said they still hadn’t consulted with their attorney to decide on their next steps, including appealing the board’s decision.
Gayle Edson said they are left with three choices. They can take the matter to court, build another access road or park at a camp on the other side of the lake and take a boat. Her husband is 74, so it’s hard of him to get in an out of a boat and to carry items, she said.
She said the couple has considered building a road to ensure future access to the camp.
“We … now have to work with our neighbors and lawyer to figure out what we want to do,” she said.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less