Residents don’t want to restrict access to roads
WOODLAND, Maine — Local residents filled the Woodland school gymnasium for the March 15, 2016 annual town meeting.
Moderator Harold Tardy read through 32 articles from the meeting’s agenda, giving residents a chance to speak and vote on each one. Each item was passed by the town’s residents, with the exception of one: the enactment of an “ordinance restricting vehicle weight on posted ways.”
Audience members did not hesitate to speak up about the nature of this ordinance, with some apprehensive to vote on the ordinance without knowing more information, and others skeptical of how the town could enforce a vehicle weight restriction.
Selectperson Peggy Espling explained that the ordinance’s purpose is to save Woodland’s roads, adding that there would be exceptions for local business owners.
“They are your roads, you can use them for anything you need,” said Espling, “if you have a business in our town.”
Another member of the audience expressed concern regarding the logistics of the ordinance, since it would be difficult to enforce this ordinance only for those who do not pay taxes for the town of Woodland.
“One question that has been asked again and again is: if you put something on the books and can’t enforce it, then what’s the point?” asked the audience member.
Espling explained that, when the signs were up in the past, trucks tended to use the state roads instead of smaller back roads in Woodland. She backed this claim by informing the resident that it is something she has personally observed, since she lives on a small Woodland road.
“Our little side roads are not equipped to handle these big trucks,” said Espling.
An additional concern from the audience was the impact of this ordinance on the common resident, or a tax-paying Woodland resident who does not own a business, but may need assistance for their home in the form of septic maintenance, for example, which would require a large truck to travel on their small road.
Selectpeople Carl Grant and Espling both confirmed that, in these situations, local residents would not be penalized.
As the discussion ended, only one resident voted in favor of the ordinance, while the overwhelming majority were opposed.
