New Shoreham council weighs options after survey shows stone wall encroaches 14 feet onto town land

New Shoreham — Councilors on Dec. 2 confronted a dispute over a stone wall built onto town land, after an updated survey showed the wall encroaching up to roughly 14.2 feet onto Town-owned property (Plat 3, Lot 1208). The council discussed possible remedies — asking the owner to move the stones, accepting the wall as town property, recording a deed restriction, or pursuing litigation — and directed staff to pursue follow-up steps.

The issue arose after the town conducted a survey and sent a letter to the property owner. Town counsel reported the owner proposed alternatives, including selling or leasing the land, granting an easement, or gifting the wall, and urged the council to consider nonlitigious resolutions. The owner, however, told the council that when the wall was partially built a town employee visited and, according to the owner, said it was acceptable to continue; the transcript records the town employee’s denial of that claim.

Why it matters: Councilors said a wall that encroaches on town property sets an important precedent if left unaddressed, because it can lead the public to assume manicured areas or walls reflect official property boundaries. Several councilors expressed frustration that the matter was not handled earlier without legal expense, and asked staff and counsel to preserve leverage in negotiations with the owner’s attorney.

Key facts and positions: Solicitor and council members said the survey confirmed the wall extends approximately 14.2 feet onto town land; the town previously asked the owner to remedy the situation and received a reply proposing alternatives to removal. One council member said the owner had once offered to gift the wall to the town; others urged immediate removal or legal action to avoid setting a precedent for other property owners. Some councilors suggested a recorded agreement (for example a deed restriction requiring removal on sale or transfer) or accepted gifting followed by town removal as pragmatic alternatives.

Council direction: The council agreed to have staff (Amy) speak with DPW (Mike Shea) about whether the town would remove the wall and to have legal counsel continue discussions with the owner’s lawyer. A motion to press the property owner to remove the wall was discussed; members who initially made motions withdrew them in favor of seeking additional staff input and returning with options at a follow-up meeting.

Quotes that capture the meeting tone: "We have a responsibility," one council member said after the survey results were shown. Another said, "Someone built a wall on town property and to me that's just not acceptable." Others stressed negotiation and the cost of litigation.

Next steps: Staff and counsel will follow up with the property owner's attorney to seek a practical remedy; the council asked Amy to consult with Mike Shea on town removal options and to report back at a future meeting. No formal enforcement action was finalized at the Dec. 2 meeting.

Provenance: Topic begins at SEG 2223 and continued through the meeting’s final substantive discussion near SEG 2873.